Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Well, Im not talking about just the religion(which does get overblown). But just alot of their basic cultural tenets. Your time in Istanbul does lend better perspective than most- but the larger cities are generally more progressive than the outlying areas- which is generally where your militant types are coming from. City people dont want the stuff they build and work for getting blown up- out of towners dont have that kind of attachment
That's true of any region though, or at least I can't think of any case in which major cities are less progressive than outlying areas.
As far as the origin of terrorists goes, the classic cases is Osama bin Laden. Born in Riyadh, well educated, given a great deal of contact with cosmopolitan culture, etc. Without going citing a long list of examples: Islamist terrorist organizations tend to be based in regions where people are sympathetic to their views (generally outlying, as you noted) but their membership often varies wildly. Sure, there will be a lot of people who originated nearby, but the core of the organization is almost always made up of people like bin Laden.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Any peace process has 2 sides, but electing a party that bears the name of the same people that have been blowing up Isrealis- doesnt bode well as a sincere gesture at peace.
Clearly not, its simply that I'm hesitant to regard the current state of the matter as distinct from the many instances in the past in which either side alternately rebuffed the other.
Truthfully, I think the closest the two sides came to peace was in '95 with the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, the assassination of Rabin effectively terminated the good faith on which that agreement was founded.
Mistress of minis wrote:
You dont think its correct- thats ok. It was a general statement which means there will be exceptions like the ones you mentioned(but others that fall well into the stereotype) But when you look at most of the survivng tribes- they arent the ones with a war like heritage- the aggressive tribes either conquered or were defeated. Many of the tribal groups that survive today were more passive in nature and capitulated to being ruled. Im not just talking about recent history here- Im talking about looking at it from a pre-Ottoman perspective.
If we're looking at the pre-Ottoman period, is it not somewhat disingenuous to apply your critique to the Middle East alone? It isn't as if the European political order was any less brutal at the time. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to indicate that the Middle East is somehow unique in its inability to move past old divisions without bloodshed, but that is what I drew from your comment.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Then, once you start adding in European influences to control the area, thats where many of the current day nations got their boundaries. And those boundaries didnt do the best job at respecting the traditional lands of many tribes. Some accepted the change- others got pissy about it.
True, but its important to note that, in most cases, the attachment to one's land is stronger than one's culture. For example, even if Kurdistan were to be created in Northern Iraq it is highly unlikely that Turkish Kurds would be willing to relocate, no matter the degree to which they were persecuted. The national boundaries may be foreign, but they aren't meaningless.
Mistress of minis wrote:
The crux of it still boils down to this- when you take foreign lands and chop them up into countries on a map without regard for the social forces at work- it makes a mess.
Very true. As above, the situation in Northern Iraq with respect to a nascent Kurdistan is one glaring example of this.
Mistress of minis wrote:
I mean, we could get into all the things that changed the Middle east, how the Mughals, the Crusades, 18th & 19th centruy colonization etc etc. But most people seem to prefer to have a hundred year limit on thier history- makes it easier to remember, and easier to see that things like this havent happened over & over.
Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons Iran is such an enigma to so many. It was the effective crossroads of all the dominant influences on the Middle East between the Muslim Conquests, and the European colonial project.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Palestinians should just go back where they came from and leave Israel alone.
This post is a joke.
To the darkness I bring fire. To the ignorant I bring faith. Those who welcome these gifts may live, but I will visit naught but death and eternal damnation on those who refuse them.
+++ Chaplain Grimaldus of the Black Templars, Hero of Helsreach +++
The Vengeance Crusade Black Templars Resource Faith and Fire The Ammobunker Gamertag: MarshalTodt
Because you would then have to accept your opinions arent just more valuable because you think they are. Opinions are a level playing field- having substance to back them up are another matter.
Says the woman who in every "conversation" we have had has basically cried semantics and "run away" after establishing a shifting sands argument that alters with every exchange.
His point on the mindset of the Palestinians is a valid one- as its a totally foreign mindset from what we're used to. Unless you've been to the middle east you probably dont understand that.
Well, Im not talking about just the religion(which does get overblown). But just alot of their basic cultural tenets. Your time in Istanbul does lend better perspective than most- but the larger cities are generally more progressive than the outlying areas- which is generally where your militant types are coming from. City people dont want the stuff they build and work for getting blown up- out of towners dont have that kind of attachment
Case in point. You argue a lack of perspective in others (as you did in your first thread opposite me) than when presented with a strong counterpoint you alter your argument to allow it to continue alongside the counterpoint as if you were right all along. Realistically you were arguing cultural tendencies and viewpoints and the fairly ambiguous concept of them being alien to ours. When presented with a counterpoint you alter your argument to become one of poverty vs prosperity and the cultural impact of bias in areas of poor education. So if it's not a totally foreign mindset except in the rural areas, and that mindset is born of poverty, what makes it alien? What makes it uniquely middle eastern? Is it so separate from thai rural protestors or tribal support of maoist rebels in india? If we're talking about palestinians in particular, did you know that Hamas is one of the highest paying career choice in the region? A police officer working for Hamas (The defacto government in the region) is paid several times the regional average. But I guess they don't live in places that they care enough about to go legit. Y'know, since policework is paramount to shooting rockets into israel.
Notably you switch from argumentative fallacy to argumentative fallacy with (virtually) every post, though weasel wording remains consistent throughout.
Gee, Shuma, thats such a dose of brilliance I'll just give you the free 'IWIN' button so you can feel better about yourself. You continue to see no value in what anyone says except yourself. And if you really were that brilliant- I might be able to figure out what point you're trying to make. You wish to be contrary without substance- when someone else provides substance- you dismiss it as argumentative fallacy and lay down accusations. Thats rather childish. But at least your consistent about your limits in that regard. I wont say anything more to you however, I know a lost cause when I see one.
Gee, Shuma, thats such a dose of brilliance I'll just give you the free 'IWIN' button so you can feel better about yourself.
yay! I win!
You continue to see no value in what anyone says except yourself.
And sebster, dogma, and phryxis... Orkeo. Y'know, I don't even mind Orlanths nutty conspiratorial textwalls. But then again I'm boxing like twelve accounts and most of the posts in OT are me arguing with myself out of sheer narcissism.
And if you really were that brilliant- I might be able to figure out what point you're trying to make.
I was making two really. I believe in a meritocracy of opinions, and I believe that you were trolling me. The post was primarily just a breakdown of one half of your responses to dogma.
You wish to be contrary without substance- when someone else provides substance- you dismiss it as argumentative fallacy and lay down accusations.
Yes, people in the Mideast are alien to us. This is substantive. Clearly I'm the only person that takes issue with this idea, and I do it simply to be contrary. Thank you for providing such a massive amount of factual backing to your opinion on this. Backing like "Poor people don't have things" and "It doesn't count if you live in a city". Such wit! Such clarity of thought!
Thats rather childish.
I have fond memories of power rangers.
But at least your consistent about your limits in that regard. I wont say anything more to you however, I know a lost cause when I see one.
Cool. When you want to inflate your ego by making vapid and unsupported inferences about the strange denizens of the oil realms (or when you want to take up that conversation about the psychology of groups we almost had earlier) just give me a shout. I'll be staring at a mirror flexing and complimenting myself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 07:58:15
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Mistress of minis wrote:
Well, Im not talking about just the religion(which does get overblown). But just alot of their basic cultural tenets. Your time in Istanbul does lend better perspective than most- but the larger cities are generally more progressive than the outlying areas- which is generally where your militant types are coming from. City people dont want the stuff they build and work for getting blown up- out of towners dont have that kind of attachment
That's true of any region though, or at least I can't think of any case in which major cities are less progressive than outlying areas.
As far as the origin of terrorists goes, the classic cases is Osama bin Laden. Born in Riyadh, well educated, given a great deal of contact with cosmopolitan culture, etc. Without going citing a long list of examples: Islamist terrorist organizations tend to be based in regions where people are sympathetic to their views (generally outlying, as you noted) but their membership often varies wildly. Sure, there will be a lot of people who originated nearby, but the core of the organization is almost always made up of people like bin Laden.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Any peace process has 2 sides, but electing a party that bears the name of the same people that have been blowing up Isrealis- doesnt bode well as a sincere gesture at peace.
Clearly not, its simply that I'm hesitant to regard the current state of the matter as distinct from the many instances in the past in which either side alternately rebuffed the other.
Truthfully, I think the closest the two sides came to peace was in '95 with the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, the assassination of Rabin effectively terminated the good faith on which that agreement was founded.
Mistress of minis wrote:
You dont think its correct- thats ok. It was a general statement which means there will be exceptions like the ones you mentioned(but others that fall well into the stereotype) But when you look at most of the survivng tribes- they arent the ones with a war like heritage- the aggressive tribes either conquered or were defeated. Many of the tribal groups that survive today were more passive in nature and capitulated to being ruled. Im not just talking about recent history here- Im talking about looking at it from a pre-Ottoman perspective.
If we're looking at the pre-Ottoman period, is it not somewhat disingenuous to apply your critique to the Middle East alone? It isn't as if the European political order was any less brutal at the time. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to indicate that the Middle East is somehow unique in its inability to move past old divisions without bloodshed, but that is what I drew from your comment.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Then, once you start adding in European influences to control the area, thats where many of the current day nations got their boundaries. And those boundaries didnt do the best job at respecting the traditional lands of many tribes. Some accepted the change- others got pissy about it.
True, but its important to note that, in most cases, the attachment to one's land is stronger than one's culture. For example, even if Kurdistan were to be created in Northern Iraq it is highly unlikely that Turkish Kurds would be willing to relocate, no matter the degree to which they were persecuted. The national boundaries may be foreign, but they aren't meaningless.
Mistress of minis wrote:
The crux of it still boils down to this- when you take foreign lands and chop them up into countries on a map without regard for the social forces at work- it makes a mess.
Very true. As above, the situation in Northern Iraq with respect to a nascent Kurdistan is one glaring example of this.
Mistress of minis wrote:
I mean, we could get into all the things that changed the Middle east, how the Mughals, the Crusades, 18th & 19th centruy colonization etc etc. But most people seem to prefer to have a hundred year limit on thier history- makes it easier to remember, and easier to see that things like this havent happened over & over.
Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons Iran is such an enigma to so many. It was the effective crossroads of all the dominant influences on the Middle East between the Muslim Conquests, and the European colonial project.
I'll just reply in a lil summary(watching a movie and too diatracted to quote it all) Good responses there
For the pre ottoman example, its intent isnt just limited to the middle east as I mentioned it- that just is the context since its the general region we're talking about. Dragging in the specifics of the European influences on all this is well beyond the scope of the thread and comprehension of some. I only mentioned Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia deal as its a good example of what can happen in similar situations.
And as for Iran- you're right. In some ways its a very forward country, yet mixed into that is some social paradigms that to us, appear to be at direct odds with the other accomplishments. It makes it a bit of an enigma to many, but one I hope that time will sort out(before it turns into something stupid and people die because of it).
I sometimes wonder if the people that are so supportive of the palestinians are even vaguely aware of the actual history involved, or if theyre just being humanitarian. I mentioned the Ottoman period specifically as its the most recent example of a widespread unifier in the region. Through various phases in history, Biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman periods there was always something that was sort of a binder that could let the tribal entities be seperate but still maintain a political presence. The Ottoman empire was broken up because the European powers were basically afraid of that much power- and add in the greed factor of oil becoming valuable at the turn of the 20th century, there are so many factors that have fueled the mess in the middle east. Its really nothing new- just a historical cycle. But the difference is how its now seen. Rather than jsut reading an occasional blurb, we get live videos, we see an incident within hours if not minutes, of it happening. Which makes it easier to take what is seen at just face value- rather than looking at the deeper isues and causes that lead up to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
You wish to be contrary without substance- when someone else provides substance- you dismiss it as argumentative fallacy and lay down accusations.
Yes, people in the Mideast are alien to us. This is substantive. Clearly I'm the only person that takes issue with this idea, and I do it simply to be contrary. Thank you for providing such a massive amount of factual backing to your opinion on this. Backing like "Poor people don't have things" and "It doesn't count if you live in a city". Such wit! Such clarity of thought!
I cant let that part go unanswered. Thats a blatant misquote- as I said NOTHING about poor people, or not counting if you live in a city- thats your interpretation. If you're going to criticize things- at least quote accurately- inability to at least do that makes you look delusional- or incapable of reading. And please stop having the misplaced hubris to believe that the replies I make are all aimed at you- other people are reading and contributing to the topic, and some of them may like learning something they werent aware of.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/12 08:21:57
Mistress of minis wrote: But the difference is how its now seen. Rather than jsut reading an occasional blurb, we get live videos, we see an incident within hours if not minutes, of it happening. Which makes it easier to take what is seen at just face value- rather than looking at the deeper isues and causes that lead up to it.
There's also the issue of Imperialism to consider. In the West, particularly America, it is very easy to forget that much of our power is a legate component of European action. Perhaps its because we 'threw off the shackles', or perhaps its because we choose to intellectually separate ourselves from Europe (via Wilsonianism). But, regardless, there seems to be a nominal failure to appreciate that Israel was the necessary result of the Western Imperial project, and that, regardless of how we see ourselves, our funding of the Jewish State (I use this phrase only to avoid repetition) is considered a tacit extension of that.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Mistress of minis wrote: But the difference is how its now seen. Rather than jsut reading an occasional blurb, we get live videos, we see an incident within hours if not minutes, of it happening. Which makes it easier to take what is seen at just face value- rather than looking at the deeper isues and causes that lead up to it.
There's also the issue of Imperialism to consider. In the West, particularly America, it is very easy to forget that much of our power is a legate component of European action. Perhaps its because we 'threw off the shackles', or perhaps its because we choose to intellectually separate ourselves from Europe (via Wilsonianism). But, regardless, there seems to be a nominal failure to appreciate that Israel was the necessary result of the Western Imperial project, and that, regardless of how we see ourselves, our funding of the Jewish State (I use this phrase only to avoid repetition) is considered a tacit extension of that.
Exactly! our social development has been so different because of that- we dont have centuries of tribal and ethnic diversity that influenced the growth of our nation over 200+ years. Im not claiming those influences of those that settled here arent a factor- they were- but there was a greater drive to form a nation- so its kinda like we had a fresh start/cleaner slate as the industrial revolution took root. Other places didnt have that- they have centuries of traditions and history they werent willing to set aside jsut for new stuff(such as Imperialism and its extensions).
People seem to forget- that Israel was formed, when the British Mandate of Palestine was set to expire, and the newly formed United Nations could not make an agreement that was acceptable to the Arab League- the initial offer- was for Jerusalem to be an international city(overseen by the UN)- and for the country to have 2 states- one Arab, and one Jewish. But the Arab league refused- and began attacking jewish targets with raids. So, the day before the Mandate was going to expire- they decided to make Israel a nation. And like a year later- the UN accepted them as a nation- mostly because it was the easiest answer about where to send all the Jewish refugees from WW2. It seems ironic that the Palestinians forget that there was an opportunity for them to have had half- but they(Arab League) refused the offer. And ever since Israel has pretty much fought off attacks by every single one of its neighbors. And Palestinian freedom fighters have been attacking them since the Mandate of Palestine expired. You'd think after 60 years of this crap they'd figure out a more logical way to resolve it.
However you dismissed all witnesses as not credible at a whim
Yeah, ON BOTH SIDES. I am not aware of any impartial witness to this affair. Also, while I don't find them totally credible, I do think it's important to hear what they all have to say. I just don't take it as a statment of fact. As I said earlier, I look for things we know are true, and for things that both sides agree upon.
Good analysis involves not dismissing such information. There is a lot to be learned from it. Corroborate your evidence with multiple sourcing and even if the sources are suspect you can glean a lot of the truth.
In fact finding stuff in support of a theory from a hostile source amidst what else they say is better than a definitive comment from a non hostile source.
Phryxis wrote:
We have seen testimony from Israeli commandos as to how they formed perimiters and shot attackers. Are they not credible?
They describe a fairly desperate stand, where they surround their wounded and fight to defend them. Is that not credible?
Yes I find the testimonies of the soldiers on YouTube very useful in working out what happened. More on this later.
Phryxis wrote:
You also seem to take as a given that the activists initiated hostilities.
No, I consider this to be an accepted fact on all sides...
But I would also understand confusion. I'm not viewing the use of pepperballs as "hostilities." I view the use of metal pipes to beat somebody as "hostilities" and, I believe, both sides agree that this happened before any shooting of actual firearms took place.
Actually boarding a vessel while armed is a hostile act in itself, you get sdome form of escalation from there. Peaceful reistance is lawful, hence attempts to immobilise the commandoes when they landed as corroborated.
Shooting with pepperball guns is also a hostile act. Were they not there would be no value in showing slingshots as 'evidence' of weapons. You cant have it both ways.
Its not an 'accepted fact'.
Phryxis wrote:
If you feel that shooting pepperballs constitutes "hostilities" I wouldn't necessarily disagree, it's just a matter of definitions, and isn't important. What I think IS important is that the use of metal pipes was the first potentially LETHAL act.
Phryxis wrote:
Thats what I'm trying to get across. The first truly DANGEROUS action was taken by members of the flotilla.
Fastroping amidst paniced people is in itself dangerous.
Also an MO for IDF has been to shoot to kill Palestinian demonstrators throwing stones, including children. This polict was exposed by press during the Infitadah, the excuse given for shooting stone throwing children was 'stones can kill'. Its a low chance of causing real damage but it was enough for the IDF to shoot and kill children. I dont know if they follow this policy anymore, they certainly no longer advertise it as it didnt wash with the international community and caused a major scandal at the time.
The relevance of this is that a lot of 'non lethal' armaments can kill or wound. The Israelis photgraphed slingshots and bottles full of stones as 'weapons'. If we stick by their own standards a pepperball gun is a weapon too, you or I might not agree but you can be assured the Israelis wouldnt tolerate being shot by them and might resort to lethal force if they are, just as when a child is ising a slingshot or throwing a stone.
In any case it would be hypocritical at leas for them to consider firing pepperballs not a hostility allowing for how low they set the bar for a lethal responce.
Phryxis wrote:
I meantioned that if they were finishing moves/coup de grace then the victims were murdered.
I was trying to avoid using the word 'execution', which is a more proper term for a non-merciful 'coup de grace' shot.
Phryxis wrote:
To be clear, I don't disagree that deliberately shooting an unconscious person in the back of the head is an illegitimate thing to do. I'm not sure it's technically "murder" in this situation, but it's certainly excessive, and I understand fully your disgust with it.
Actually it is murder. Civilians in a place they were lawfully allowed to be, i.e. passengers and crew of a ship, not that that was specifically relevant in itself. even if they were 'mercenaries' as the recent wave of Israeli propoganda likes to imply then shooting then using execution shots (if you dont like finishing moves) to the back of the head or temple is murder.
The shooting victims are entitled to medical attention, as per every captured person in a conflict. Civilians doubly so.
Phryxis wrote:
BUT... I see no proof that this happened, and in fact I don't even see any strong implications that this happend.
Eyewtneses corroborated by medical forensics. You simply dont want to see this as evidence. There is enough for a good prosecutor to run with here.
Phryxis wrote:
I would think that witnesses would have specifically mentioned this if it happened, but I haven't seen that. I've seen a lot of "they shot them and it was murder" but no mention of "he went over to the downed person and shot him in the head."
Thats actually quite normal with evidence, even today in murder trials you do not expect a witness to get the evidence exacting. Precision testimony is for TV courtroom drama, normally you take the rough indications from witneses as to who and where and add the forensics. As the crime scene will be wiped clear we only have the bodies to go by, and the witnesses.
Phryxis wrote:
And to be clear, shooting somebody who is laying down, say from 25 feet away, is not the same thing (at all) as going over to them while they're down, aiming at the back of their head, and firing. It's very easy to miss and hit somebody on the deck at 25 yards. AND, if you're hiding next to the downed person, all you see is them getting shot, not how much duress the shooter was under, or what he was trying to hit. That would effect your testimony.
It doesnt affect the credibility of a witness statement, most witness statements in real life shootings are like that.
Phryxis wrote:
So, I see no proof that these executions actually happened. What I do is see is a lot of speculation on your part, and confusion as to how many shots were fired, etc. One second this kid was hit once in the head, then it's three, then it's one... Not only is that not proof of anything, but you can't even seem to keep your not proof straight.
Its funny that you claim I have been watching too much TV earlier from my 'knowledge' of how firearms work, yet your idea of how testimony works is similar to TV courtroom drama. There is more than enough here to make a claim that the activists were murdered. It looks like the Israelis do too, as it explains a recent change in tactic.
I am no more 'confused' than anyone else as to how many shots were fired. I really doubt anyone knows for certain. What I have focused on is the number of wounds, and am not confused in the slightest. I stuck with the same evidence throughout. Thats rerally poor attempt to destroy an argument.
'Your confused', no I am consistent, 'its all speculation', no the medical examiners counted the wounds. I have stuck with the same evidence throughout.
Stop making blanket denials and try to argue the issues please, or have the good grace to say ' I cant answer that one'.
Phryxis wrote:
This is what I'm talking about when it comes to being critical of your own views. You can certainly make the argument that the wound patterns COULD be the result of a deliberate execution, but to conclude it with the certainty that you have is just irresposible.
Speaking out against flat denial when people are shot unlawfully makes good sense. You accuse me doing wrong if I call this as murder when you permit yourself to say equally equivocably that it is not.
Is it wrong to speak for the dead, to keep memory of an injustice alive? No. Especially when the victims are being labelled by the ones who orchestrated their deaths and are getting away with it through a media campaign.
Ask yourself this: Who died on that ship? Activists or terrorists.
If they were terrorists good riddance, but if they were activists we should not stop asking why and not take a whitewash for an answer.
Phryxis wrote:
Even if that's what you believe happened, you need to have the sense to know that not everyone is leaping to that conclusion, and so you can't just state it as fact over and over again as if everyone agrees.
A hypoocritical answer you are trying blanket denials until hopefully everyone agrees with you. No proof, no proof, no proof is all I hear. I have shown you evidence, evidence that would be more than enough to arrange a prosecution case. A conviction is where proof is provided beyonf reasonable doubt. Your doubt isn't reasonable, it involved a flat denial of eyewitneses and ignoring the pattern of bullet wounds that support eyewitness claims.
Phryxis wrote:
Two apparently got into the hands of activists, and apparently caused two gunshot wounds between them.
I'm not clear, did any of the commandos suffer a gunshot wound? I was under the impression that they did not, but you seem to be saying that two gunshots were inflicted on the commandos.
That's actually even worse than I had thought. I had thought the guns were taken, but not effectively used.
If you read the Israeli commandoes eyewitness comments you will read that two commandoes were shot. I got that from Jerusalem post, it wasnt corroborated elsewhere, but I had no reason not to accept it as valid evidence, so I did not attempt to do so. I posted a link to the article here on the thread.
Phryxis wrote:
You were making arguments that the gun could have gone into the sea, when you KNOW it was in the hands of the activists? See how disingenuous that is?
You were asking me to provide options of where the gun could be was from the point of view of a specific picture. Go up and read your own question, which you admitted was actually just a trick anyway. You were applying the assumption at the time that there was no other option than for the gun to be held. This in itself was not true. Thus you were trying to read unfair evidence from the picture. This is why you need to corroborate your story.
We do not know if this specific commando had his gun taken, the guns were on the commandoes backs when they fastroped. We do know that several commandoes were immobilised, from the soldiers testimonies, but only two guns were taken.
The above link is very interesting. Some of it may be embalished, its as story for the IDF news media given by soldiers under orders, but the landing is described. Apparently each commandos fastroping was seized by three or four of the activists. One was described as being tied down. If only two guns were taken its not unfair to assume the objective was to immobilise and not to take guns. There is a lot missing from the story of course, like the fact that the activists were under fire from pepperballs from before the first landing.
What is odd is the idea that each soldier was immobilised which was decribed as 'lynched' allowing for translation, but only two guns were taken, only two hits taken and the commandoes only suffered light injuries. This is especially if we assume that the commando who killed six of ther nine activists killed claimed he was part of a reserve wave and had set up two perimeters and corralled his own wounded before he even drew his gun.
It looks very much like the attempt was made to only immobilise the commandoes but some thought they were under assault with deadly force and thus took the guns from the commandoes. If the activists wanted to be armed with guns, they would have stocked up in Turkey. Everything points to a paniced reaction of some while others tried to adhere to a realistic strategy of immobilising the commandoes.
Phryxis wrote:
If the doctors who did the examinations tell us where the activists were shot thats all the forsensics expertise I need right there.
You really can't pull crap like this. Surely you understand how totally unqualified you are to make these judgements?
Its decent evidence that follows logic, you seem to claim to be 'qualified' to issue blanket denials, without the need to attempt back them up with any logic.
Remember the medical examiners job is only to show where the person was shot, it would be unprofessional to say more. However the examiners evidence is then neutral information and free to be used by others to piece together a pattern of events.
Phryxis wrote:
There are people that do this work for a living, who are trained and experienced in piecing together a likely flow of events, and you're obviously not one of them.
And even THEY wouldn't claim to know the details you pretend to.
Perhaps they could or would if engaged in the subject matter here. Everyone is putting forward opinions, you seem to claim you have the right to, suddenly you want to stop and search me for credentials. Where are yours?
Phryxis wrote:
You're an armchair pathologist, and even at that you're extremely poor. Take the American who was shot, Furkan Dogan: "Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle."
To you, it's IMPOSSIBLE that he wasn't executed. But how about this:
He's approaching with a metal pipe. The commando fires low, hoping to stop him, hitting his left leg and ankle. He is unaffected and keeps coming. The commando fires high this time, rapidly as the attacker is now close, the first shot striking his nose, and wounding him badly. He spins away and takes another shot in the back, then one in the head, causing him to collapse. The collapse is all that registers with the commando, causing him to stop firing.
ANOTHER one: He comes around a corner holding a gun, and is immediately shot in the face, causing him to fall. Another activist picks up the pistol, crouches down, and tries to shoot around the corner. In the exchange of fire, the commandos hit the prostrate Dogan four more times in the leg, back and head.
It's VERY possible for this any of this to happen. I'm not saying it's the most likely case. I'm not saying it IS what happened. But you like to pretend that from a brief summary of his wounds, you KNOW he was executed with a gunshot to the back of his neck.
Well at least you are now attemtping to put forward a logic chain. Nice for you to start to show your reasoning. The thread has been ten pages. Now I get the chance to olook at what you wrote.
To you, it's IMPOSSIBLE that he wasn't executed. A very loaded and illogical reply, proof beyond all doubt is not a requirement outside of hard science. We are looking at a likely course of events as would 'stick up in court'. If you can say 'thats murder' you can charge with murder and hope a jury would convict of murder. That is as far as I can take what I am saying.
He's approaching with a metal pipe. Ok, lets assume he was armed. I wont ask you for 'proof'.
The commando fires low, hoping to stop him, hitting his left leg and ankle. He is unaffected and keeps coming. The commando fires high this time, Right earlier you were going on about how the salvo of shots would last about a second, and claiming to know enough about guns what with the 'have you ever touched a gungun etc etc'.
Crap grouping? For a commando firing at 45cm range?
rapidly as the attacker is now close, the first shot striking his nose, and wounding him badly. All the shots occured at approx 45cm range according to the report. How much closer has he got?
He spins away and takes another shot in the back, then one in the head, causing him to collapse. Ok he only spins now does he.
The collapse is all that registers with the commando, causing him to stop firing.
Phryxis wrote:
One caveat though, the activists were nerar or directly under helicopters at the time further confusiong what they were hearing.
Actually, its probable that the paintguns wouldn't have been audible over the sound of the choppers. They may not have noticed the shooting at all.
They would have noticed colleagues being shot, but not by what. Unless you are assuming you fire pepperballs to miss, or Israeli commandoes are such crap shots they cant hit a crowd from above it. I doubt either are likely.
Phryxis wrote:
But we see one with a considerable amount of blood on him. He is also, clearly being held down, but he has also clearly been injured badly enough to soak articles of clothing in blood. There is a drawn knife visible, which is not a useful tool for holding somebody down.
Dark staining, was it blood? Whose blood? It wasnt from the clean knife anyway. The knife is to help encourage him to stay down, or it might have been just taken from the commando. The guy was likely brandishing it as a trophy. In any event none of the commanodoes were listed as hasving been stabbed. Its obviously not from lack of opportunity.
The picture corroborates the story theory that the activists only tried to immobilise the commandoes. when some reaxcted to seeing their colleagues being 'shot' it didnt reach the inside of this group, or the commando would have been killed all too easily.
Unless of course the commando who killed six activists is lying and the commandoes opened fire pretty much immediately.
Few if any of the weapons seized and photographed were real weapons, just kitchen knives, ships tools and batons, which look to be for removable railing. The knife shown in the picture was a military knife, it may well have been taken from one of the commandoes.
Phryxis wrote:
when flight is not possible paniced people fight.
Two problems... Flight WAS possible. The commandos had circled up. They weren't pursuing anybody.
Sorry not in any way logical even the limited logic employed by panicing people. You cannot outrun a helicopter and it was from the helicopters that the shots were coming from. Also the commandoes were not there simply to sit on one part of the deck forever. A paniced activist would realise that, perhaps even you can.
Phryxis wrote:
It's also done as an individual, not as a group. A group of people don't experience the effect.
You should be more concerned over your armchair psychology than my armchair pathology. Have you even head of group psychology? Basic insitincts run deeper in groups than in individuals, so much more so the larger the group ther lower the collective IQ. A glance at the stock market should tell you this. Paniced crowds doubly so.
Phryxis wrote:
There's simply no way that a group of people would attack armed commandos in a "panic." They would have to be much more confident for that.
It's not reasonable to just say "panic" and then assume any action after that point is fair game.
Yes and no. Crowd control is the responsibility of the authorities present, when they decided to board the IDF became the authority present regarding culpability of crowd movement. Knowing how to herd crowds is a basic policig and military polcing technique.
Phryxis wrote:
And hey, if it is, why aren't the commandos, surrounded and defending their wounded under gunfire, also in a "panic?"
Perhaps there was a panic, though I doubt it very much. It wouldnt be an excuse. A governments military is expected to have a higher bar of training and behaviour than civilian activists. They also initiated hostiliies by making the drop.
This is why if a soldier panics and hits civilians its worse than if a civilian panics and hits soldiers, this is taking individual nationalities out of it for a moment.
Phryxis wrote:
I have shown logical integrity not dishonesty.
I understand that you feel that way, but I simply can't agree.
.....I will always do the courtesy of respecting a well stated position. I simply can't agree that everything you've said, or even a small minority of what you've said, fits that description.
The criteria for integrity is not, 'does it agree with Phryxis'. It is laughably arrogant for you to make claim that it does. You are just another guy, you are not the benchmark against which the truth is judged.
You dont agreem, fair enough.
But you never point out WHY you dont agree, you just heap denial upon denial. You calim I have shown no evidence, but wont say why my evidence si not evidence, you say I have shown no logic, but wont say why wehat I say is not logical, you say I have no integrity, but wont say why.
It all comes down to the fact that you dont agree. Fair enough, but that's your opinion, and not a lack of logic or integrity on my part. But if you cant say why you dont agree then at least do me the courtesy of shutting up until you can come up with a better argument than a string of denials.
Phryxis wrote:
I don't think you're holding yourself to the same standards of accuracy that you expect the Israelis to hold themselves to. Considering that you have nothing to lose and the Israelis DO, you should be that much MORE accurate than them.
The Israelis killed nine people, I have killed none. I am hearing a lot of denial from them and their apologists in the press. Fact remains those people are dead. They can try and label them terrorists or murderous mercenaries but it isnt wadhing, and it shouldnt.
The onus is for the people who ordered in thr soldiers that took those lives away to answer. I was not there they were, they have made no effort to even appear remorseful, but have labelled the dead in order to justify their bloodshed. Aid workers and activists dead, because they wanted to bring goods into Gaza that the Israelis wasnt to ban. You try and remember that.
Its perfectly right to show a higher bar for them. They have the conficated footage, they have their own footage from the helicopters. They have the soldiers debriefing notes, they have the interview notes from the arrested activists, they still have some of the activists. So why is it wrong to question when they show a lower degree of accuracy in their comments.
Come on at least try and show some proportion. How the feth can I expect to have access to as high a degree of information, yet even you admit can still notice that there are very big holes in their story though.
Phryxis wrote:
I would gladly extend you the courtesy if you were talking anywhere NEAR logic or reason. I have shown that. For example, while loki is more on your side of events than mine, he's not making the sort of flagrantly ridiculous allegations you are, so I can respect what he's saying.
Again you simply choose to dismiss my claims out of hand. You still have shown no attempt to debunk them with logical argument. Just flat denial. You make clai that I show 'no logic' no matter how many times I show the logic and refuse to say why. Come on, isnt it time your showed some intellectual integrity yourself. Its funny that you keep denying I have any.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/12 09:47:52
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Exactly! our social development has been so different because of that- we dont have centuries of tribal and ethnic diversity that influenced the growth of our nation over 200+ years.
I don't agree. Ethnic and nationalist strife carried over from the Old World quite frequently, even in the colonization efforts. New Amsterdam didn't become New York for lack of reason.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Im not claiming those influences of those that settled here arent a factor- they were- but there was a greater drive to form a nation-
See, I don't see that. I see the gradual erosion of States' Rights as being synonymous of national desire. In my mind, the 'nation' did not exist before, at least, Lincoln. And perhaps not until FDR.
Mistress of minis wrote:
People seem to forget- that Israel was formed, when the British Mandate of Palestine was set to expire, and the newly formed United Nations could not make an agreement that was acceptable to the Arab League- the initial offer- was for Jerusalem to be an international city(overseen by the UN)- and for the country to have 2 states- one Arab, and one Jewish. But the Arab league refused- and began attacking jewish targets with raids. So, the day before the Mandate was going to expire- they decided to make Israel a nation. And like a year later- the UN accepted them as a nation- mostly because it was the easiest answer about where to send all the Jewish refugees from WW2. It seems ironic that the Palestinians forget that there was an opportunity for them to have had half- but they(Arab League) refused the offer.
They didn't refuse anything as a people. Palestinians are an interesting mix of several cultural heritages (Arab, Turk, Persian, Russian) and the Arab League cannot be said to represent them; especially because the Arab League still practiced colonial diplomacy.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And ever since Israel has pretty much fought off attacks by every single one of its neighbors.
Until they signed 2 separate peace treaties with Egypt, and Jordan.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And Palestinian freedom fighters have been attacking them since the Mandate of Palestine expired. You'd think after 60 years of this crap they'd figure out a more logical way to resolve it.
You would also think that the Israelis would recognize the folly of concentration camps. Yet that is what lead to the first Intifada.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/12 10:16:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Phryxis wrote:
...But that was the first "televised" war, and the fallout is still going on.
So, I don't necessarily think Israel's military is significantly weaker than it has been, I think they're just crippled by the public relations pressures that the world has begun to exert on any nation that uses force.
This is not a modern phenomena or limited to Israel or recent Gulf wars. Vietnam is a very good example of a televised war and 'yelow press' is a problem going much farther back.
Israel gets more stick because it does more questionable things.
Phryxis wrote:
I find the "whoa, you mean people get hurt in war?" attitude to be childish and ridiculous, but it's also a reality that has to be dealt with.
Case in point, you are comparing actions like the aid flotilla assault as a war. Which possibly explains you overeagerness to justify what occurs.
Phryxis wrote:
For example, the denotation of the activists as 'mercenaries' leads one to wonder who hired them
Apparently the IDF thinks they were actual mercenaries...
The content of that article certainly contrasts with what's being said in this thread.
If even half of what that article says is true, I have a whole lot less sympathy for the dead.
The IDF has been calling them mercenaries for a few days now. There is a good reason for that.
Mercenaries are with the exception of legalised groups like the Gurkhas and French Foreign Legion clasified under international law as 'illegal combatants'. You cannot execute civiklians, you cannot execute sodiers but you can execute mercenaries under internartional law.
Someone else is taking seriously the evidence that the killings on the ship are highly suspect, likely for reasons I gave earlier. Israel is stocking its larder so if it gets difficult to brush off how some of the activists died they can claim out 'they are mercenaries' and thus absolve themselves of any accusations of murder.
Like with the legality of the blockade, once a grey area can be established there are more than enough biased lawyers who will stand up and speak out how it was perfectly acceptable to finish off downed activists in the press.
It's typical MO for Israel of late, stand on a thin and twisted point of international law while showing open contempt for justice.
As for whether they are mercenaries, its really clutching at straws. A payment does not a mercenary make, they could be more accurately described as bouncers. The money can easily be explained, you can have guards without crossing over into the classification of mercenaries. You can pay ship crew and helpers danger money with a lot of credibility under the circumstances, a danger money bonus also explains why the money was in cash on the person. Also mercenaries are deliberately armed for lethal force, and pipes do not cut it as deliberate armament in military law. But that isnt the issue, an ambiguity is being manufactured and if there is any ambiguity the Israelis will stick to the point and doggedly defend it. I give them some credit for that, while they make crass stands on some really dodgy technicalities, their entire denial of basic amenities to Gaza is based on thin legal technicalities they also have the bottle to see it through. Most other governments dont have anything like the stones the Israelis have.
So they are 'meercenaries' now, ho hum. At least all but the most rabid have stopped trying to label the entire flotilla terrorists, which is a breakthrough I suppose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
And sebster, dogma, and phryxis... Orkeo. Y'know, I don't even mind Orlanths nutty conspiratorial textwalls. But then again I'm boxing like twelve accounts and most of the posts in OT are me arguing with myself out of sheer narcissism.
Thats a bit harsh. At least Phryxis tries to reply, and doesnt lower himself (yet) to reduction ad calling thing the other guy mad. What conspiracy anyway?
If you think I am off key or hole digging then come and challenge me on the issues. Otherwise keep your name calling out of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something buried deep in the Jerusalem Post article of great interest.
Soldiers testified that in at least two instances their sidearms were taken from them, as were their helmets and vests. Two soldiers jumped off the ship into the water to save themselves from being lynched. Jerusalem Post
So the Commandoes were stripped not only two sidearms but at least one lost his helmet and vest. Isd there any confusion that if the activists actually wanted to kill them they would have been dead. You have knives you have pipes, you managed to get someone armoured vest off, if the goal of the activists was to kill, some comandoes would be clearly have dead. If it was not, why use lethal force.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 10:23:18
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth. wrote:
Fastroping amidst paniced people is in itself dangerous.
To be completely fair, it does not appear that the commandos were inserted amidst a mob. They were dropped onto the uppermost deck, which appears to have been sparsely populated. The Mavi Mavara is a very large ship.
Orlanth. wrote:
Actually it is murder.
I don't think there is enough to indicate that the activists were murdered. The situation is simply too messy to get down to that level of accusation. If there were a video of a surrendering activist, or perhaps a sequence of images, being shot I think there would be more to it. But, even in that case, we are left to consider the context of the situation as that which is nominally considered 'combat' or 'military'; meaning that people have, in the past, been exempted from murder charges for similar behavior.
Orlanth. wrote:
Civilians in a place they were lawfully allowed to be, i.e. passengers and crew of a ship, not that that was specifically relevant in itself. even if they were 'mercenaries' as the recent wave of Israeli propoganda likes to imply then shooting then using execution shots (if you dont like finishing moves) to the back of the head or temple is murder.
I didn't think there was a lot of credence to the notion that the shots were fired unnecessarily, but now that we've seen some footage of the actual exchange I think there may be. Like Phryxis, I was assuming a much more tightly packed melee, but that does not appear to be what took place. Now, that doesn't mean lethal force cannot be justified. Given the stress implicit within the situation, and the general fear that occurs when one's lethal weapons are taken away, I think there are good grounds on which to justify the conduct.
In short, we either need more evidence, or we must accept this as an unfortunate incident in which many things went wrong, for the Israelis anyway. I do believe that the activists were prepared for the conflict, and therefore expectant of casualties. However, I am not sure they intended to kill the Israelis.
Orlanth. wrote:
The shooting victims are entitled to medical attention, as per every captured person in a conflict. Civilians doubly so.
There are pictures of activists treating the wounds of Israeli commandos. I'm not sure that the inverse is true, as there are no pictures of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/12 22:58:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
(We have two parallel discussions now. Jus' sayin'. It might be time we either split threads or ended it here because both of them are going round in circles because we're all stubborn gamers.)
"And what is wrong with their life? What on earth is less reprehensible than the life of the Levovs?"
- American Pastoral, Philip Roth
Oh, Death was never enemy of ours!
We laughed at him, we leagued with him, old chum.
No soldier's paid to kick against His powers.
We laughed - knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars: when each proud fighter brags
He wars on Death, for lives; not men, for flags.
Mistress of minis wrote:
People seem to forget- that Israel was formed, when the British Mandate of Palestine was set to expire, and the newly formed United Nations could not make an agreement that was acceptable to the Arab League- the initial offer- was for Jerusalem to be an international city(overseen by the UN)- and for the country to have 2 states- one Arab, and one Jewish. But the Arab league refused- and began attacking jewish targets with raids. So, the day before the Mandate was going to expire- they decided to make Israel a nation. And like a year later- the UN accepted them as a nation- mostly because it was the easiest answer about where to send all the Jewish refugees from WW2. It seems ironic that the Palestinians forget that there was an opportunity for them to have had half- but they(Arab League) refused the offer.
The main propogator of this peace proposal Count Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi, scuppering talks. You are forgetting that some Jewish groups also did not want the peace proposal. It would be grossly unfair to blame any one side of the war of 1948.
dogma wrote:
They didn't refuse anything as a people. Palestinians are an interesting mix of several cultural heritages (Arab, Turk, Persian, Russian) and the Arab League cannot be said to represent them; especially because the Arab League still practiced colonial diplomacy.
It was not Colonial diplomacy, it just looks like that at first glance. Please remember that other than Egypt none of the Arab states had a cultural territory. Egypt existed culturally as a nation and thus could reinvent itself. The other constituent parts of the levant were just parts Ottoman Empire until it was carved up by the Sykes-Picot agreement with cooperation of local tribal chiefs and kings. The arab kings of the time had no set territory but the allegiance of certain tribes. pPaces like Jordan and Syria cannot decided on Palestinian identity because you could quantify their own. All the nations of the levant betwen Turkey and Egypt were artificial creations. Jordan was a river, the people group who lived there were not Jordanians, they had no Jordanian border they had tribal borders and identities.
Its too easy to apply western parallels to Arab states that didnt actually logically follow at the time. Jordan controlled the West Bank until 1967, but that territory was no more, or less Jordan than Jordan itself was. The true teritory of a Hashemite king is where he plants his tent and the number of his followers. This had to change in part after 1918 and later when the European colonial mandates expired. Though ion practice some tribal leaders started early. Abdul Aziz started to claim teritory in 1904 when he and four servants attacked the turkish fortress in Riyadh and by extension took the town. This skirmish directly caused the founding of Saudi Arabia.
1948 was rude awakening fro many different reasons, the local Arab populations didnt think on national terms but on terms of local tribes and cities, as thery had done for millenia. Jewish migrants had a western national outlook and the emergent Arab governments, mostly monarchies at the time started to realise that flexible ambiguous borders would no longer do. Because borders were entirely flexible and no-one really minded it caused an immeidate shitstorm when people came from overseas with a completely different mentality. With the Turks it made no difference because they claimed the lot and did nothing to change the status quo. The British and French added some frontiers, between each other, but otherwise left things as they were. After the mandates expired and the Arab states were set up the laxity of borders became a major issue, especially in Palestine where Jewish land claims multiplied 'overnight'.
dogma wrote:
Mistress of minis wrote:
And Palestinian freedom fighters have been attacking them since the Mandate of Palestine expired. You'd think after 60 years of this crap they'd figure out a more logical way to resolve it.
You would also think that the Israelis would recognize the folly of concentration camps. Yet that is what lead to the first Intifada.
The horrible truth is that Israel as a nation doesnt want peace with Palestinains it wants them gone. Little by little they are getting their way. This is compounded by supporting Biblical verses in the book of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua all of which encourage a no-compromise policy and a slow systematic takeover at any price. Much of the Israeli mindset becomes understandable if you read those three books.
Paslestinians are too fractured to have a core opinion. some want revenge for lost family or lost oportunity, some just want th clamity to be over but dont know how. I honestly beleive that only a buy out will resolve the issues. Israel is going to have the land by one means or another and are determined to go to any lengths to do so. Its better to let them have it, but make them and/or their US backers pay a good generious price for it. Buying the land is the most peacful of the Biblical options. Short of wiping out or ensalving the Israelis there is nothing to stop them trying the other recommended methods, many of which aere very unpleasant. Yes the Bible does tell the children of Israel to kill the Canaanites and claim the promised land, not excluding the women and children.
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn their idols in the fire. Deuteronomy 7:1-5
22 The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. 23 But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. 24 He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them. Deuteronomy 7:22-24
dogma wrote:
Until they signed 2 separate peace treaties with Egypt, and Jordan.
Agreed, it is rumoured that peace with Syria is not far away once the Golan Heights is sorted out. There have been rumours of an Israeli withdrawl and a demilitarised zone being set up as per the Camp David accord. Thisd would by extension also sort out Lebanon.
Peace with Egypt and Jordan is also holding and relations are cordial. Both sides know better than to antagonise each other.
It's also logical to work. There is no scripture telling Israelis to conquer those lands, and a fair look at the Koran warns Moslems not to cross Allah by attacking Jews, who are favoured of Allah (some like to skip this bit). In fact the book of Isiaah speaks of a time when Syria, Israel and Egypt are to be friends:
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance." Isaiah 19:23-25
And it case you are wondering, Koranic and Biblical promises and prophesy make a LOT of difference in Middle East policy. You cannot seperate the politics from the theology if you are to understand what is going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Place holder for my response to Orlanth.
I am looking forward to your reply.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 13:18:41
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
dogma wrote:
Truthfully, I think the closest the two sides came to peace was in '95 with the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, the assassination of Rabin effectively terminated the good faith on which that agreement was founded.
Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories arose almost immediately following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, on November 4, 1995. The gunman Yigal Amir, a Jewish Israeli student, was apprehended within seconds by other people in the crowd. Rabin died later on the operating table of Ichilov Hospital. Amir confessed to the assassination of Rabin.
The matter has been reported as clear cut in the media, and the Shamgar national inquiry commission and the court all drew the same conclusion that Amir was guilty of murder. Yet, some inconsistencies in the evidence have been alleged, both in the medical records and in the inquiry testimony. These allegations and other suspicions have been included in occasional left-wing, and more prevalent right-wing conspiracy theories.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Notably you switch from argumentative fallacy to argumentative fallacy with (virtually) every post, though weasel wording remains consistent throughout.
Gee, Shuma, thats such a dose of brilliance I'll just give you the free 'IWIN' button so you can feel better about yourself. You continue to see no value in what anyone says except yourself. And if you really were that brilliant- I might be able to figure out what point you're trying to make. You wish to be contrary without substance- when someone else provides substance- you dismiss it as argumentative fallacy and lay down accusations. Thats rather childish. But at least your consistent about your limits in that regard. I wont say anything more to you however, I know a lost cause when I see one.
Mistress, do like I did a while back and put Shuma on ignore. He gets off on attacking other posters because he seems to have nothing else going on in his life. It'll save you a lot of time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 13:47:01
Let's see what kind of progress we've made in this thread so far. Hmmm, oh, none. People who were pro-Israeli before still are and people who were pro-Palestinian are still the same. 11 Magnificent pages of spinning wheels!
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Orlanth wrote:Soldiers testified that in at least two instances their sidearms were taken from them, as were their helmets and vests. Two soldiers jumped off the ship into the water to save themselves from being lynched. Jerusalem Post
So the Commandoes were stripped not only two sidearms but at least one lost his helmet and vest. Isd there any confusion that if the activists actually wanted to kill them they would have been dead. You have knives you have pipes, you managed to get someone armoured vest off, if the goal of the activists was to kill, some comandoes would be clearly have dead. If it was not, why use lethal force.
Why are you assuming that the commandos have perfect knowledge of the situation?
Mistress of minis wrote:
Notably you switch from argumentative fallacy to argumentative fallacy with (virtually) every post, though weasel wording remains consistent throughout.
Gee, Shuma, thats such a dose of brilliance I'll just give you the free 'IWIN' button so you can feel better about yourself. You continue to see no value in what anyone says except yourself. And if you really were that brilliant- I might be able to figure out what point you're trying to make. You wish to be contrary without substance- when someone else provides substance- you dismiss it as argumentative fallacy and lay down accusations. Thats rather childish. But at least your consistent about your limits in that regard. I wont say anything more to you however, I know a lost cause when I see one.
Mistress, do like I did a while back and put Shuma on ignore. He gets off on attacking other posters because he seems to have nothing else going on in his life. It'll save you a lot of time.
The irony!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats a bit harsh. At least Phryxis tries to reply, and doesnt lower himself (yet) to reduction ad calling thing the other guy mad. What conspiracy anyway?
If you think I am off key or hole digging then come and challenge me on the issues. Otherwise keep your name calling out of it.
I've occasionally chimed in on singular portions of your posts, but as they are you're far too involved with phryxis right now for me to interject meaningfully. As to textwalling I have a 1080p monitor and your last post with the israeli navy soldier vid was 3.5 screens long. That is quite the feat! The conspiratorial part existed earlier in the thread when you were quick to take turkey at it's word but quick to lambast the press releases of Israel. You had some fairly visible bias, and as phryxis had accused you of, you were using fairly loaded language at times (israelis murdering civilians for instance). I probably should have posted "Semi conspiratorial textwall" rather than "Nutty conspiratorial textwall". I posted that at a little past 3 in the morning and Killians is delicious. I apologize.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 18:53:11
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Ahtman wrote:Let's see what kind of progress we've made in this thread so far. Hmmm, oh, none. People who were pro-Israeli before still are and people who were pro-Palestinian are still the same. 11 Magnificent pages of spinning wheels!
It all depends on who's more credible, peace activists from around the world or IDF soldiers.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
Orlanth wrote:
It was not Colonial diplomacy, it just looks like that at first glance. Please remember that other than Egypt none of the Arab states had a cultural territory. Egypt existed culturally as a nation and thus could reinvent itself.
I consider colonial diplomacy to be the direct result of Eurocentric rulers attempting to ride heard over the populations with which they were entrusted in the aftermath of the European withdrawal. In essence, the colonizers never left, they simply changed faces.
Orlanth wrote:
The other constituent parts of the levant were just parts Ottoman Empire until it was carved up by the Sykes-Picot agreement with cooperation of local tribal chiefs and kings.
Calling any component of the Ottoman Empire 'just a part' is a bit of a stretch. The Millet System insured that most cultural majorities had at least some degree of autonomy; something which made the transition to colonial rule far easier to bear. Indeed, the fact that Sykes-Picot included tribal authority in any way at all is a testament to their accustomization with autonomy.
Orlanth wrote:
The arab kings of the time had no set territory but the allegiance of certain tribes.
You should note that tribal allegiance can be directly translated into geographic terms by simply considering the areas inhabited by aligned tribes. Simply because territory is not defined by lines on a map does indicate that lines on a map are not appropriate means with which to understand territory.
Orlanth wrote:
pPaces like Jordan and Syria cannot decided on Palestinian identity because you could quantify their own. All the nations of the levant betwen Turkey and Egypt were artificial creations. Jordan was a river, the people group who lived there were not Jordanians, they had no Jordanian border they had tribal borders and identities.
Hence my insistence on the practice of colonial politics. Regardless of that, all nations are fundamentally artificial in that they are the direct product of human artifice. Mandates from God notwithstanding, of course.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Orlanth wrote:Soldiers testified that in at least two instances their sidearms were taken from them, as were their helmets and vests. Two soldiers jumped off the ship into the water to save themselves from being lynched. Jerusalem Post
So the Commandoes were stripped not only two sidearms but at least one lost his helmet and vest. Isd there any confusion that if the activists actually wanted to kill them they would have been dead. You have knives you have pipes, you managed to get someone armoured vest off, if the goal of the activists was to kill, some comandoes would be clearly have dead. If it was not, why use lethal force.
Why are you assuming that the commandos have perfect knowledge of the situation?
Where was I assuming that?
Imperfect knowledge is the norm, and soldiers are trained to use that but with helicopters circling closely and open radio links and above all good commanders the commandoes would have a good idea of whats going on. Nevertheless I never tried to discuss or comment on the C3I, until right now of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Orlanth. wrote:
Fastroping amidst paniced people is in itself dangerous.
To be completely fair, it does not appear that the commandos were inserted amidst a mob. They were dropped onto the uppermost deck, which appears to have been sparsely populated. The Mavi Mavara is a very large ship.
I got this from the soldiers testimonies. The commando interviewed said that each soldier down the rope was met by 3-4 activists.
dogma wrote:
I don't think there is enough to indicate that the activists were murdered. The situation is simply too messy to get down to that level of accusation. If there were a video of a surrendering activist, or perhaps a sequence of images, being shot I think there would be more to it.
Whether its got away with and whether its an unlawful killing are two different things. it looks like any footage has not survived, we only have the eyewitness testimonies.
This is getting overly cyclic however you did add something new to this, highlighted i bold. An activst need not surrender, if he is down and fininshed off as a seperate attack that is itself unlawful.
dogma wrote:
I didn't think there was a lot of credence to the notion that the shots were fired unnecessarily, but now that we've seen some footage of the actual exchange I think there may be. Like Phryxis, I was assuming a much more tightly packed melee, but that does not appear to be what took place. Now, that doesn't mean lethal force cannot be justified. Given the stress implicit within the situation, and the general fear that occurs when one's lethal weapons are taken away, I think there are good grounds on which to justify the conduct.
The sdhooting of activists was trajic, but that of itself is not a crime, just an over-reaction. I too assumed a more tighly packed melee, but then there might have been one the smuggled footage was from an activist who remained on diferent decks away from any fighting. In fact she was prevented from getting closer to windows by other activists late in the video and all those in the room were asked to take cover because of lethal fire.
dogma wrote:
There are pictures of activists treating the wounds of Israeli commandos. I'm not sure that the inverse is true, as there are no pictures of that.
I hadnt heard that, if the commandoes were actually given medical attention, which makes sence if the plan was to immobilise them it would put the Israeli comments about the activists in the very cold light.
Had the acticvists defence strategy worked, however unlikely that sounds I can imagine and would expect medical aid being given, to be given swift medical aid did suprise me, assum,ing this is true. Are you sure they are not wounded activists wearing similar coloured clothing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Let's see what kind of progress we've made in this thread so far. Hmmm, oh, none. People who were pro-Israeli before still are and people who were pro-Palestinian are still the same. 11 Magnificent pages of spinning wheels!
People post to air views and reach understanding of opposed views, compare ideas and iron out theories. Its very rare for someone to have a broad reversal of opinion. A thread is still good to go without one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/12 23:31:00
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You cant have it both ways. Its not an 'accepted fact'.
Please try to understand what is being said, rather than getting hung up on one or two words. I said it's an accepted fact that the activists started hitting people with pipes before anybody got shot. I also said that the pipe hitting is the fist instance of real physical violence in this skirmish.
I'm not aware of anybody debating that. Well, except you, but you debate things I don't say, so I'm not sure that counts.
Fastroping amidst paniced people is in itself dangerous.
They were not in a panic. You've staked a lot of your arguments on this notion, and not only are those arguments invalid even if we assume the people were panicked, but the people were clearly not in a panic. You're simply wrong here. There's video that clearly shows that the activists are not panicking.
This wasn't some mad, soccer game stampede.
It was a bunch of activists of different types and mindsets, some of whom had clear intentions for violence, and whose actions escalated the incident into physical conflict.
The relevance of this is that a lot of 'non lethal' armaments can kill or wound.
Pepperballs are not going to be lethal, but they could certainly blind somebody. A thrown rock is of considerably more danger, but also not very dangerous.
Being shot at with rubber bullets is no joke. Youl could certainly be killed by one. If you're shot at with pepperballs, simply laying down and covering your face will bring you through fine every time. It's a different scale entirely from rubber bullets.
allowing for how low they set the bar for a lethal responce.
Totally disingenuous. They didn't start shooting until members of their team were beaten with metal pipes. Beating somebody with a metal pipe is VERY dangerous, and could EASILY be fatal. You saw the video. We're talking two handed overhead swings on a prostrate target. Every single swing is breaking a bone. A paintball is totally harmeless in comparison. A thrown rock is totally harmless in comparison.
There is more than enough here to make a claim that the activists were murdered.
Wow, now you're a legal expert. In what jurisdiction are we talking? You're telling me there's enough evidence... Ignoring the fact that different nations and jurisdicitions within those nations, all have different standards for evidence.
In the US, it takes a lot more than witness testimony to get a murder conviction.
You call these Israelis murderers... But where I come from, that's the word for somebody who's been CONVICTED of murder. So you can start hedging, and pretending like all you want is a trial, and all you claimed to have as due cause for a trial, but you're calling these commandos "murderers." That's not a trial, that's a conviction.
There's a reason the American media, as lazy and dishonest as it is, calls everyone an "alleged whatever" until conviction. It's because even in their horrible, horrible unprofessionalism, they're still more intellectually honest than you've ever dreamed of being.
What I have focused on is the number of wounds, and am not confused in the slightest.
You sure?
You said: "Several bullets at the back of the neck looks to honest interpretation like an execution style killing. Put them down and keep them down. Double tap."
Then you realized it was one shot, not "several" and that had zero effect on your expert forensic evaluation.
Please, dude. Don't think that I'll forget you saying "double tap" for a long time. I still chuckle at it every time I read this thread.
You accuse me doing wrong if I call this as murder when you permit yourself to say equally equivocably that it is not.
Wrong. I never said it wasn't murder. I said you have no basis to insist that it is. I've been VERY clear. It's quite possible that the commandos did just as you say, and executed people. But you don't know they did.
I've been extremely clear on this. The fact that you don't understand my point of view is because you don't read, you just blather your opinions over and over. That's why I have called you disrespectful of this thread. You don't listen, you just tell everyone else what's "true."
Everything points to a paniced reaction of some while others tried to adhere to a realistic strategy of immobilising the commandoes.
This is extremely unrealistic. How is it that some people are "immobilising" in a rational, strategic fashion, even as others in the same exact space, "panic" and start beating them with clubs?
You've seen them being beaten with metal pipes. Is that "immobilising?" Is that "panic?" No. It's people trying to do as much damage as they can manage.
Well at least you are now attemtping to put forward a logic chain.
For about the tenth time. I guess I hit the lottery, and you actually were paying attention this go round.
Right earlier you were going on about how the salvo of shots would last about a second, and claiming to know enough about guns what with the 'have you ever touched a gungun etc etc'.
I really can't even track what you're saying, it's too incoherant. As usual, I think you've totally missed the point. I'm not saying THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I'm giving an example of how somebody could get the wound pattern that Dogan did, without it being an execution. I was clear, that wasn't WHAT HAPPENED. It's just one reasonable way it could happen, which is what's called a "reasonable doubt."
As far as "claiming to know enough," I wouldn't try to pull rank. I own over a dozen handguns, and have shot and trained with them extensively. As I understand it, the commandos had 9mm Glocks. I happen to own one of those, and three other Glock pistols besides. How many Glocks do you own? How many have you shot?
I've done numerous training courses around "shoot/don't shoot," shooting in combat situations. I know what it's like to fire rapidly on targets. How many combat handgun courses have you taken?
Unless you are assuming you fire pepperballs to miss, or Israeli commandoes are such crap shots they cant hit a crowd from above it.
I would assume that the vast majority of the pepperballs would miss. With the prop wash, they'd be very unpredictable. I'd also urge you to watch the video I posted. The people weren't crowded up in a ball in a wide open deck area. They were moving around the ship, in and out of doors, hiding beneath overhangs, shooting back with slingshots.
Honestly, I saw nothing in the videos to indicate that the activists were even aware that paintballs were being shot at them.
I did hear one of them exhorting the others to "arm yourselves" and I did see them shooting slingshots (which is not a big deal, but does show a willingness to do harm).
It wasnt from the clean knife anyway.
Can't wipe a knife off? Why is the knife out? Was he cutting himself up a nice apple for a snack? Besides, slashing somebody with a knife doesn't necessarily result in a horrible, gore spattered blade. It takes a while for the blood to start flowing.
The criteria for integrity is not, 'does it agree with Phryxis'. It is laughably arrogant for you to make claim that it does.
Let me promise you one thing, dude: You were wrong and incoherant before you ever exposed me to your incoherant wrongness.
I've had people disagree with me, many times, who I still could respect. Their arguments were different from mine, but they at least made sense. You don't even make sense. Your standards of proof are inconsistant or nonexistant. Your appeals to logic are flawed or nonexistant. You just make very poorly thought out arguments, and you don't pay much attention to what anybody else says.
"Intellectual dishonesty" is a real phenomenon. You practice it extensively. And, like all good liars, you believe your own lies.
You still have shown no attempt to debunk them with logical argument.
I have done so repeatedly. There's nothing I can do to spoon feed it to you any more. Like all ideologues, you are well trained in ignoring the words of others.
Case in point, you are comparing actions like the aid flotilla assault as a war. Which possibly explains you overeagerness to justify what occurs.
My point is that if somebody needs pictures to realize that wars (or any sort of large scale violence) hurt people, then that person is an idiot, and their point of view probaly isn't very illuminating.
if the goal of the activists was to kill
Yeah, well, two of the commandos jumped overboard into the open sea. That's not something you do unless you think the alternatives are worse, and swimming around the open sea, at night, with no floatation gear, isn't very safe.
To be clear, I don't think the activists were trying to kill as many commandos as possible, from the get go. I think they were just trying to "resist." Some want were "resisting violently" and then freelancing from there. I think that eventually they were trying to kill the commandos, but not immediately, and not everyone was trying.
The videos I've seen give the impression that the activists on the boat were not a unified collective, they were many different groups of people doing their own thing, in the same place. Some were clearly just trying to observe. Some were trying to resist peacefully. Some were hoping to kill an Israeli, and be martyred themselves.
Honestly the story the Israelis give of "mercenaries" in small groups trying to take them down fits with the video. There are lots of women looking upset and scared, some injured and people tending to them, then there are clusters of men acting alpha and aggressive.
It's also worth noting that both sides are going to assume the worst intentions of the other, and then probably cling to that assumption forever. If somebody is hitting you with a metal pipe, they might be thinking "let me just get this guy to give up, then I'll stop." But when it's you getting hit, you tend to assume the guy is just trying to kill you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do believe that the activists were prepared for the conflict, and therefore expectant of casualties.
The video I posted shows a reasonably systematic response to casualties. I think we have to assume they had a plan for this. That's not proof they inteded to kill Israelis, though, it's just a proof they expected casualties.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect casualties if you don't intend to resist violently, but that doesn't mean these activists viewed it the same way. They may have thought they'd be attacked regardless.
There are pictures of activists treating the wounds of Israeli commandos.
I haven't seen that, do you have a link?
The video I posted they mention that "soldiers" are being brought in for medical treatment, but that doesn't say if they're actual IDF soldiers, or just "soldiers for Gaza" or somesuch.
I don't find it at all surprising that some of the activists would help Israelis. A great many of them seemed to be well intentioned peacenik types. Others seemed to be self-righteous Euro adrenaline junkies who just wanted to be there and point fingers in outrage (basically Orlanth, but with the balls to do something). Either of those I could see helping a wounded Israeli.
I think it's important not to forget the dynamic between all these factions of activist, as well. For example, I think that some of the "alpha" types would gladly kill a commando, but if a woman came up to help him, they'd move on. Similarly the non-violent activists would naturally gravitate away from the commandos, while the alphas would pursue them.
The size of the ship and the nature of the video suggests to me that anybody that was shot had the option to not be. They had plenty of time and space to retreat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/13 00:03:42
Phryxis wrote:
Please try to understand what is being said, rather than getting hung up on one or two words.
Ok shall we.
Phryxis wrote:
You said: "Several bullets at the back of the neck looks to honest interpretation like an execution style killing. Put them down and keep them down. Double tap."
Then you realized it was one shot, not "several" and that had zero effect on your expert forensic evaluation.
Sloppy wording that hou are hung up on. Several necks several bullets. At least four of the nine victims had temple of back of neck wounds and different wound grouping elsewhere. This makes it suspicious. It also follows the phiklosophy for IDF close range pistol assassinations.
My 'expert forensic evaluation' was done by the doctors. I am just using the findings. Had it been just one I would have had to conceded doubt, four deaths this way, sorry that plus eye witnesses is too much.
Phryxis wrote:
Fastroping amidst paniced people is in itself dangerous.
They were not in a panic. You've staked a lot of your arguments on this notion....There's video that clearly shows that the activists are not panicking.
Again we only see the parts of the ship not under direct attack in the new footage. The only thing we know about the parts of the ship that were under attack is that the activists were under fire from the outset.
Let us look at tyhe new evidence. Its vey clear now that the activists wrre trying to immobilise, its not been rumoured (being fair) they even tried to give medical attention to downed Israeli commandoes, also at least one flak jacket was removed, a perfect opportunity to kill the wearer.
Despite all this you still assume they activists were likely to kill the commandoes with the metal bars and other improvised weapons and tools they were carrying.
Phryxis wrote:
It was a bunch of activists of different types and mindsets, some of whom had clear intentions for violence, and whose actions escalated the incident into physical conflict.
Again you are flat assuming that it was the activists who escalated physical conflict. Ask yourself this, what were the commandoes doing on the ship? Having tea and crumpets. Also allowing fro the tools they brought, items to deliver electric shocks to break down thr human wall in the wheelhouse. They boarded a ship to take it over, get it into your head that that is a hostile act.
Phryxis wrote:
You saw the video. We're talking two handed overhead swings on a prostrate target. Every single swing is breaking a bone.
So do you agree now that the activists had a planned MO of immobilisation. What got one or two guys over the line, fear, panic perhaps? You forget that at these points of contact there were helicopters overhead and pepperball guns being fired.
Phryxis wrote:
Wow, now you're a legal expert.
I am not asking for you to be an ex Israeli commando, or activist or military analyst before accepting your right to post here and read what you are saying.
Phryxis wrote:
You're telling me there's enough evidence... Ignoring the fact that different nations and jurisdicitions within those nations, all have different standards for evidence.
Picky and irrelevant.
Phryxis wrote:
In what jurisdiction are we talking?
International Maritime law as it occured at sea. This is the law that concerns such things as legality of blockade and embargos and military action and policing action at sea.
Phryxis wrote:
In the US, it takes a lot more than witness testimony to get a murder conviction.
That explains the word 'corroboration' that I used a lot.
Phryxis wrote:
You call these Israelis murderers... But where I come from, that's the word for somebody who's been CONVICTED of murder. So you can start hedging, and pretending like all you want is a trial, and all you claimed to have as due cause for a trial, but you're calling these commandos "murderers." That's not a trial, that's a conviction.
You had no problem accepting the Israeli point of view that the activists were 'murderous mercenaries'. I havent heard you condemning that at all.
Phryxis wrote:they're still more intellectually honest than you've ever dreamed of being.
Try and be a little less hypocritical in future please.
Phryxis wrote:
Please, dude. Don't think that I'll forget you saying "double tap" for a long time. I still chuckle at it every time I read this thread.
Where do you think the phrase comes from, its the extra shot to make sure. It used to mean two immediate shots but has grown in colloquial usage to mean a second insurance shot..
Phryxis wrote:
Wrong. I never said it wasn't murder. I said you have no basis to insist that it is. I've been VERY clear. It's quite possible that the commandos did just as you say, and executed people. But you don't know they did.
So you are saying we never know for sure unless the 'investigators' are themselves 'witneses'. Technically I can go with that. That is why proof is refered to as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Phryxis wrote:
I've been extremely clear on this. The fact that you don't understand my point of view is because you don't read,
I read you ok, you just denied the evidence as evidence. You still havent said why.
Phryxis wrote:
you just blather your opinions over and over. That's why I have called you disrespectful of this thread.
As you blather yours, just without backing them up. Thats why you are disrespectgul and a hypocrite.
Phryxis wrote:
You don't listen, you just tell everyone else what's "true."
I listen you just dont actually add anything, just denials again and again.
Phryxis wrote:
Everything points to a paniced reaction of some while others tried to adhere to a realistic strategy of immobilising the commandoes.
This is extremely unrealistic. How is it that some people are "immobilising" in a rational, strategic fashion, even as others in the same exact space, "panic" and start beating them with clubs?
You've seen them being beaten with metal pipes. Is that "immobilising?" Is that "panic?" No. It's people trying to do as much damage as they can manage.
As indicated before they immobilised the commandoes, if they hadn't stopped they would have killed them. No commando did die so they either stopped or were stopped.
Phryxis wrote:
As far as "claiming to know enough," I wouldn't try to pull rank. I own over a dozen handguns, and have shot and trained with them extensively. As I understand it, the commandos had 9mm Glocks. I happen to own one of those, and three other Glock pistols besides. How many Glocks do you own? How many have you shot?
I am no gun nut, nor do I need to be one to have a valid read what is happening. Sorry that isn't pulling rank. I am not asking for credentials I am asking for your logic and your conclusions. It doesnt and shouldnt matter who you are.
Phryxis wrote:
Can't wipe a knife off? Why is the knife out? Was he cutting himself up a nice apple for a snack? Besides, slashing somebody with a knife doesn't necessarily result in a horrible, gore spattered blade. It takes a while for the blood to start flowing.
IIRC No commando was reported stabbed. Is that enough evidence.
Phryxis wrote:
It's also worth noting that both sides are going to assume the worst intentions of the other, and then probably cling to that assumption forever. If somebody is hitting you with a metal pipe, they might be thinking "let me just get this guy to give up, then I'll stop." But when it's you getting hit, you tend to assume the guy is just trying to kill you.
Sure, now lets take your words and apply them to the testimony of the commando who shot six people. He first secured the wounded then set up a double perimeter , inner and outer, then drew his gun. Thats four count them four actions before he shot people. So those activists were by his own testimony not beating on the downed commandoes when he opened fire.
Though I suppose that is illogical to you and lies and other such whatever. You are going to tell me with your glock training he shot the activists, rescued the wounded, set up two perimeters then drew his gun?
Phryxis wrote:
I've had people disagree with me, many times, who I still could respect. Their arguments were different from mine, but they at least made sense. You don't even make sense. Your standards of proof are inconsistant or nonexistant. Your appeals to logic are flawed or nonexistant. You just make very poorly thought out arguments, and you don't pay much attention to what anybody else says.
Your lack of respect is not my problem its your own. I state my case rationally and within the issues. I quioted your threads enough to show that I am reading and replying to you. You would have a pont if I didnt quote you and just posted on, however I do not do that. Intellectual integrity does not have a precondition of agreement. This is the nature of paradigm, we think and draw conclusions in different ways. You constantly seem to think that unless we think your way it is invalid, inconsisten or non existant thinking. Thatis ignrant and arrogant in equal measure. There is no single concensus on truth thus multiple acceptable paradigms exist.
Phryxis wrote:
...and you don't pay much attention to what anybody else says.
Ad populem again. Ho hum.
Phryxis wrote:
Intellectual dishonesty" is a real phenomenon. You practice it extensively. And, like all good liars, you believe your own lies.
I have done so repeatedly. There's nothing I can do to spoon feed it to you any more. Like all ideologues, you are well trained in ignoring the words of others.
How dare you call me a liar, just because I disagree with you. How dare you call my opinioons out as delusion, just because I disagree with you.
How arrogant you must be to claim an intellectual high ground, you have not earned it. Stick to the issues, stop the ad hominem crap. Ad hominem is about the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, and I am not the one practicing it.
I am willing to face you on the issues and issues alone, but you flagrantly do not want to do that. Most of what I am getting is ad hominemad populem and flat denial all propogandas techniques, and you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest in my arguments.
I will make a deal with you, next time you accuse me of dishonesty or intellectual whatever I will, not reply, I will leave this current reply to stand for my later words. Please stop being a hypocrite and stay on topic politely. If you cannot repect me thats solely your problem. If I trolled you then I would be expected to apolosgise for offending you. If my chain of logic offends you or my conclusions offend you then that is simply a sign of your own immaturity. I have not being trying to offend you, I am just trying to stick with the issues
From now on any comment not on the issues of yours will be ignored. So if you want to troll me you wont find an audience.
If you want to discuss the attack on the aid flotilla I will listen and reply to what you want to say, as always. You might find we disagree though, I am ok with that, whether you are or not is not my problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/13 01:09:40
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:
I got this from the soldiers testimonies. The commando interviewed said that each soldier down the rope was met by 3-4 activists.
Yes, I'm aware of those interviews. What I'm getting at here is that the deck wasn't packed. According to Israeli sources there were 50-70 people on the top deck when the soldiers inserted and, based on the size of the Mavi Mavara, that would not be enough to consider the it mobbed.
Orlanth wrote:
This is getting overly cyclic however you did add something new to this, highlighted i bold. An activst need not surrender, if he is down and fininshed off as a seperate attack that is itself unlawful.
In this particular case it would depend on the pertinent legislation in Turkey. I'm not all that well versed in Turkish law, but I understand that the law concerning murder is not comparable to that present in either the UK or the US. The short of it being that its very open to the notion of self-defense in escalating circumstances.
Orlanth wrote:
I hadnt heard that, if the commandoes were actually given medical attention, which makes sence if the plan was to immobilise them it would put the Israeli comments about the activists in the very cold light.
Had the acticvists defence strategy worked, however unlikely that sounds I can imagine and would expect medical aid being given, to be given swift medical aid did suprise me, assum,ing this is true. Are you sure they are not wounded activists wearing similar coloured clothing?
Here is the image.
It is possible that its merely similar clothing, but it seems very much like the uniforms worn by other soldiers in other images that have been released.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Orlanth wrote:
I got this from the soldiers testimonies. The commando interviewed said that each soldier down the rope was met by 3-4 activists.
Yes, I'm aware of those interviews. What I'm getting at here is that the deck wasn't packed. According to Israeli sources there were 50-70 people on the top deck when the soldiers inserted and, based on the size of the Mavi Mavara, that would not be enough to consider the it mobbed.
It was 'mobbed' enough for the activists to gank the commandoes. The new information helps clarify some things but doesnt clear up much of what failed the smell test. It makes sense that the commandeos triec to land in an isolated spot, but the activists must have reacted quickly.
Orlanth wrote:
In this particular case it would depend on the pertinent legislation in Turkey. I'm not all that well versed in Turkish law, but I understand that the law concerning murder is not comparable to that present in either the UK or the US. The short of it being that its very open to the notion of self-defense in escalating circumstances.
IIRC its conflicting jurisdictions, which is why Admiralty Law/Maritime Law exists. Its also military law so international principles take precedence over national legal principles. Hague and Geneva conventions are the relevant legislation for regarding conflict regarding military action that causes deaths of civilians incapacitated opponents and prisoners. Maritime Law covers the lergality of the ooperations, Geneva conventions covers the legality of the shootings. This is why the status of the activists as illegal 'mercenaries' or not maters. Illegal mercenaries can be classified as illegal combatants and can be shot out of hand. Rioters, civilians ship security guars etc cannot.
If the Israelis waited until the ship had crossed into Israeli waters, as with the Rachel Corrie, Israeli law would apply, especially if the Israelisallowed armed police/coastguard to lerad the operation. That would have made it an internal matter. Though the whole issue is moot. Neither side is going to likely to accept each others inquests.
dogma wrote:
Here is the image.
It is possible that its merely similar clothing, but it seems very much like the uniforms worn by other soldiers in other images that have been released.
Thanks for that, if the casualty is who yiou think he is it will make things much more difficult for those who want to lebel the activists, even if the aid given was purely a publicity stunt. I can buy that it probably wasnt, it makes sense that part of the passangers will be medical aid workers allowing for the presense of medicinals amongst the cargo, who will feel obliged to aid any patient they come accross. However I must be fair and say that the patient could be anyone. Unless the photographer or one of the persons treating the casualty comes forward with a story. If it was a captured Israeli that story will no possibly be quickly forthcoming from the photographer. If he isnt the Israelis may well reveal otherwise, having arrested, hospitalised or shipped to the morgue everyone on the boats they will know who he is, so if he isnt Israeli and it becomes questioned that he is, its in their interests to say otherwise. In either case it is quite possible that the doctor will not seek to make comment outside of an inquest, as it would be unethical to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/13 02:07:19
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:
IIRC its conflicting jurisdictions, which is why Admiralty Law/Maritime Law exists.
In all cases occurring in international waters the law of the flag on which the crime is committed is the law which holds jurisdiction. There is no conflict in that sense.
Orlanth wrote:
Its also military law so international principles take precedence over national legal principles.
Its an international incident in international waters, so in that sense international law takes precedence regardless of anything else.
As for military considerations, that is not relevant to Turkish law outside of any determination regarding acts of war.
Orlanth wrote:
Hague and Geneva conventions are the relevant legislation for regarding conflict regarding military action that causes deaths of civilians incapacitated opponents and prisoners.
Those only apply in instances where war has been declared. The relationship between Turkey and Israel is strained, but they are not at war.
Orlanth wrote:
This is why the status of the activists as illegal 'mercenaries' or not maters. Illegal mercenaries can be classified as illegal combatants and can be shot out of hand. Rioters, civilians ship security guars etc cannot.
Actually, no. Illegal combatants are still afforded 'rights' in the sense that they are provided an unenumerated right to humanitarian treatment, and a fair and expedient trial.
Orlanth wrote:
If the Israelis waited until the ship had crossed into Israeli waters, as with the Rachel Corrie, Israeli law would apply, especially if the Israelisallowed armed police/coastguard to lerad the operation.
Yes, that is correct.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Orlanth wrote:
I got this from the soldiers testimonies. The commando interviewed said that each soldier down the rope was met by 3-4 activists.
Yes, I'm aware of those interviews. What I'm getting at here is that the deck wasn't packed. According to Israeli sources there were 50-70 people on the top deck when the soldiers inserted and, based on the size of the Mavi Mavara, that would not be enough to consider the it mobbed.
A second look at this. I downloaded some pictures of the Mavi Marmara, as something just wasnt right.
The Mavi Marmara has a fairly open upper deck being a passenger ship but still has a lot of antennae that would interfere with a drop and central deck clutter. 50-75 people on the top might not sound a lot but would effect very deep cover. The activists got in their 4 ranks and standard, and the central spine would hae restrict most movement into a loop.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
IIRC its conflicting jurisdictions, which is why Admiralty Law/Maritime Law exists.
In all cases occurring in international waters the law of the flag on which the crime is committed is the law which holds jurisdiction. There is no conflict in that sense.
True when we are talking about 'crime' as per a civic offence illegality, rather than illegality during a military policing operation.
dogma wrote:
Its an international incident in international waters, so in that sense international law takes precedence regardless of anything else.
As for military considerations, that is not relevant to Turkish law outside of any determination regarding acts of war.
Again yes and no. Different circumstances. Were this the case the boarding could simply be declared definitively illegal in advance by a Turkish court and that legal position would not change until the vessel penetrates Israeli territorial waters, or occupied Gazan waters.
Maritime law handles the legality of boarding military law handles the legality of what is done while boarding. otherwise again a Turkish court could legally prevent any guns from entering the ship thus stripping the commandoes of any legal justification if they boarded the ship while armed.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Hague and Geneva conventions are the relevant legislation for regarding conflict regarding military action that causes deaths of civilians incapacitated opponents and prisoners.
Those only apply in instances where war has been declared. The relationship between Turkey and Israel is strained, but they are not at war.
Hague and Geneva conventions also apply to undeclared wars and external policing actions. Remeber declaring wars is an outdated concept, the last declared war was WW2. You can put your own soldiers on your own streets as polcie and call it policing. When you start policing somewhere else with soldiers military law applies.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
This is why the status of the activists as illegal 'mercenaries' or not matters. Illegal mercenaries can be classified as illegal combatants and can be shot out of hand. Rioters, civilians ship security guars etc cannot.
Actually, no. Illegal combatants are still afforded 'rights' in the sense that they are provided an unenumerated right to humanitarian treatment, and a fair and expedient trial.
There is I believe more to it than that. There is a technicality by which you can kill illegal combatants and it is sometimes used to summarily execute mercenaries on site with a veneer of legality. However unless you can source more yourself I will have to give you this one
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/13 03:14:59
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:
True when we are talking about 'crime' as per a civic offence illegality, rather than illegality during a military policing operation.
To the extent that the law applies on the high seas, there is no distinction. True, military law holds jurisdiction over military personnel when they commit crimes on military property, or in the course of military action, but the questions of civilian law vs. military law in international waters has never been fully settled. From the letter of the law, the legislation of the flag nation should apply regardless, but this has never been tested when considering military action as said action is nearly always preceded by a presumption of hostility. This is actually a fairly novel case.
Orlanth wrote:
Again yes and no. Different circumstances. Were this the case the boarding could simply be declared definitively illegal in advance by a Turkish court and that legal position would not change until the vessel penetrates Israeli territorial waters, or occupied Gazan waters.
Turkey could indeed do that, and they have full jurisdictional rights to do so. However, it wouldn't be anything more than international posturing. Very similar to the warrants issued against CIA operatives by the Italian state.
Orlanth wrote:
Maritime law handles the legality of boarding military law handles the legality of what is done while boarding. otherwise again a Turkish court could legally prevent any guns from entering the ship thus stripping the commandoes of any legal justification if they boarded the ship while armed.
Again, they can do that. It just won't lead to any police action.
Orlanth wrote:
Hague and Geneva conventions also apply to undeclared wars and external policing actions. Remeber declaring wars is an outdated concept, the last declared war was WW2. You can put your own soldiers on your own streets as polcie and call it policing. When you start policing somewhere else with soldiers military law applies.
In maritime situations that is not the case or, rather, the maritime provisions of the Hague Conventions (as adaptations of the Geneva Conventions) do not specifically govern the rules of engagement and action in military action at sea. Moreover, even if they did apply in this instance, there are no provisions by which conduct in conflict can be brought to trial. The Geneva Conventions cover only the treatment of the wounded, and captured.
Orlanth wrote:
There is I believe more to it than that. There is a technicality by which you can kill illegal combatants and it is sometimes used to summarily execute mercenaries on site with a veneer of legality. However unless you can source more yourself I will have to give you this one
Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention wrote:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Ok, got it. I'm at fault for reading what you say, and you're right because you refuse to read what I say.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Again we only see the parts of the ship not under direct attack in the new footage. The only thing we know about the parts of the ship that were under attack is that the activists were under fire from the outset.
On the contrary, we know they were NOT under fire from the outset. Initially the commandos were swarmed and defeated. Only later did they rally and start shooting people.
The video shows that there was ample time and room to retreat. These activists were not being hounded and pursued, they chose to press their advantage and were shot for it.
Unless you're talking about "under fire" from pepperballs, which is not "fire." It's pepperballs. But in your world, pepperballs is "fire" and beating a downed victim with a metal pipe is "just trying to immobilize."
Its vey clear now that the activists wrre trying to immobilise
You KNOW they were hitting these men repeatedly with metal pipes. Is that how immobilisation is done? Or with drawn knives? Why lie like this?
THIS is lying. You get VERY upset with being called a liar, but what am I supposed to call this?
In the US (and I hope England gets to see it too) we have a show called Cops. Camera crews follow police as they deal with various forms of criminals and lunatics. A common theme is the suspect who tells ridiculous lies. Some dude will have been beating his wife, and she's got a bloody nose and a broken tooth, and the cops say "hey man, why are you beating your old lady?" And he says "I wasn't beating her man, I was just trying to hold her so she wouldn't hit me man."
AND HE'S LYING.
You said it's clear they were trying to immobilise. You've SEEN video of them repeatedly smashing a downed commando with a metal pipe. YOU. ARE. LYING.
Words have meanings. Sorry.
Again you are flat assuming that it was the activists who escalated physical conflict.
The commandos landed on the deck and were hit with pipes. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, all sides agree that's the first instance of actual physical violence in the whole incident.
And yes, excluding pepperballs. I am calling pepperballs -> blows with metal pipes to be an escalation to physical conflict.
What got one or two guys over the line, fear, panic perhaps?
How dishonest are you going to be? Seriously, this is unacceptable. If you're not willing to hold yourself to any standards of logic or reason, there's no point in even discussing this.
Stop and THINK... THINKKKKK....
A guy fast ropes down and he's swarmed. Do scared people run over and attack a trained soldier out of fear? No. So these guys were brave and collected enough to start the "immobilization." You'd like to pretend they just wanted to immobilise. But then they start pounding on the guy with metal pipes, breaking bones in the process.
You want to tell me they were confident enough to charge the guy, and then when the got there, had him pinned down, THEN they went into a panic and started bludgeoning him with metal pipes?
You live in a fantasy world.
But there's MORE. See, you've decided that "immobilize" is a safe, non-threatening word for you to use to explain anything and everything the activists do, including attacking with metal pipes and shooting handguns. But even if it was simple "immobilization" you're still WRONG.
We've all seen plenty of riot cop videos. It's standard practice for a human chain to try to stop riot cops from getting past them. By some accounts, this even happened on the flotilla. That's non-violent resistance, standard tactic. You don't attack the cop, but you don't let them move you, either.
We're not talking about that. It's NOT ok to just tackle a riot cop and hold him down. Even if you do it with no intention of hurting him, just "immobilizing" him as you like to call it, that's not something that will fly. See what happens if you try to grab a riot cop and hold him down. Do it ANYWHERE. You will certainly get beaten down, and you may very well get shot.
Now add in the fact that this conflict is no mere protest, but has generations of violence and death. You think it's reasonable to just try to "immobilize" an armed agent of Israel? I don't care what's in your heart. That's non "non-violent resistance" and it's the sort of thing you should expect to get you shot.
You're not just wrong, you're DOUBLE wrong.
I havent heard you condemning that at all.
I'm struggling to follow the forum rules right now. It's hard, because you deserve the finest insults that the interwebs can produce.
Let me quote myself:
"The mention of the cash on the "mercenaries" is odd. It seems like if you did get paid, you'd send the cash home."
"In that respect, the title of "Mercenary" seems a bit overblown."
And then:
"They're two sides fighting a PR battle, they're both manipulating everything they can to benefit themselves. I certainly "condemn" it, but it's so expected, and so unsurprising to me, that I have a hard time judging either side especially harshly."
I can find places where I also said that they're not "terrorists" either. So I specfically said I "condemn" it.
If you want to hear something here's a tip: LISTEN.
So you are saying we never know for sure unless the 'investigators' are themselves 'witneses'.
Yes. Saying it REPEATEDLY. WITH CAPS. SO YOU COULD SEE. BUT YOU DON'T CARE, BECAUSE YOU ONLY TALK. TALKY TALKY. NO LISTENY.
It's infuriating.
Regardless, there may be more evidence forthcoming. It may come out that there's solid evidence that executions DID happen. But so far, there's no proof. Yet you prattle ON and ON as if there is.
But, see, I pay attention. I listen to what you say. That's why when you said "several" shots to Dogan's head at close range, I thought "whoa, that's no coincidence." Then it turned out it was only one, and I realized you're not really saying anything of use, just pretending everything is confirming data. If that sort of forensic evidence proved to be REAL, and not something you said because you don't really care what the truth is, I'd agree that a murder happened.
Get it? I've been saying this for 11 pages now. Thanks for FINALLY letting it sink in.
So those activists were by his own testimony not beating on the downed commandoes when he opened fire.
Nope, I fully agree, if he set up a perimeter, I would assume it was clear of activists, and that the wounded inside the perimeter were not under assault at that point.
From there, he shot people.
I don't know the circumstances of that with any detail. It's my assumption that he did not go hunting for anybody, but instead people came to him. According to his testimony, they were actually shooting at him, which would be a totally valid reason to shoot back. Considering that two commandos suffered GSWs, we have to assume that they were indeed shot at at some point.
It's certainy POSSIBLE, that at some point he wounded an activist, then delivered a fatal shot to the downed individual. But I see nothing in any of this that proves it.
How dare you call me a liar, just because I disagree with you.
Holy CRAP dude. It's all "just because you disagree with me" in your world.
You're being intellectually dishonest to the point that I feel it's actual lying. I gave an example of this above. It's not simply that you disagree. It's that you disagree in a fashion that's so dishonest, I have no other word for it than "lying."
You have to understand, I don't say this just to offend you. There comes a point in a debate at which everything has been said, and if people are still not communicating, then it comes down to communication styles.
So, I'm not saying "you lie, so I win!" If anything, I'm saying "because you're lying, we all lose, because it makes this discussion worthless."
I'm calling you a liar because you're being so intellectually dishonest, I need to draw attention to it. I'm saying to you "check what you're saying, and SERIOUSLY ask yourself if it's the truth." I'm saying it as forcefully as possible, because, as I think I've completely proven by now, YOU DON'T F-ING LISTEN.
I'd love to get you to think critically without having to act like a dick, but you require special attention.
Maybe, at heart, you're a very honest person. That's great. But I'm sorry to tell you, you've gotten so emotionally invested in this argument, and your command of logical process is so flawed, that you've made a liar of yourself. Repeatedly
If anything, by calling you a liar, I'm counting on your sense of honesty to shock you into asking "why is this guy calling me a liar," so you might actually LISTEN for a few paragraphs.
You may be willing to face me on the issues, but you've demonstrated a total lack of ability to do so. I already made my arguments, and you ignored them. Now I'm trying to get you to stop ignoring them, and you're mad that I haven't made any arguments. You're behind the curve. Catch up, and stop wasting my time.
I'd love it if somebody could moderate here, and tell me if I'm crazy. Anybody? Shuma? Dogma? Is this dude just ignoring what I say, or what? What should I do differently to get the point across?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/13 03:48:24
Phryxis wrote:
You KNOW they were hitting these men repeatedly with metal pipes. Is that how immobilisation is done? Or with drawn knives? Why lie like this?
THIS is lying. You get VERY upset with being called a liar, but what am I supposed to call this?
An opinion? It could be a lie, but it doesn't have to be.
Phryxis wrote:
You said it's clear they were trying to immobilise. You've SEEN video of them repeatedly smashing a downed commando with a metal pipe. YOU. ARE. LYING.
You can immobilize someone with a metal pipe, generally this is done by bashing them with it.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.