Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pro-Israel BBC bias on Flotilla Massacre documentary.
Options
-
26-09-2010 10:34pm#1The impact of deception.Cause they didn't just come up and shoot people indiscriminately obviously.
The footage is very interesting... Firstly it shows the Israelis tried to use paint-ball guns from boats and were beaten back. Then it shows they came back and the whole thing went to shít. It also has an Israeli commander saying they shouldn't have come back the second time, it was a mistake. As I said this attack was wrong and a fúckup but it doesn't look like they planned to kill anyone. No consolation but no massacre either.
They actually did come up and shoot people obviously. I must've read over a hundred different eye-witness statements of passengers, even spoke in depth with one in person and they were all remarkably similar, it was an act of piracy and mass-murder. For those who don't choose to look beyond the surface there is always the BBC, who with a reach of millions are not serving the tax payers by broadcasting lies as truth, so who are they serving?GENEVA — A UN probe said Wednesday there was "clear evidence to support prosecutions" against Israel for "willful killing" and torture committed when its troops stormed a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May.
In a scathing report, it also threw out Israel's argument that activists on the aid ship were violent thereby justifying the decision by Israeli soldiers to open fire, adding that some were the victim of actions "consistent with...summary execution."
The inquiry ordered by the UN Human Rights Council said Israel's military used "unnecessary violence" in the incident and committed acts that "constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law."
There was "clear evidence to support prosecutions" of crimes against international humanitarian law including "wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," it said.
Rejecting Israel's justification of its soldiers' decision to open fire, it said it found that even those who did not attempt to stop Israeli soldiers from boarding the aid ships "received injuries, including fatal injuries."
"It is apparent that no effort was made to minimize injuries at certain states of the operation and that the use of live fire was done in an extensive and arbitrary manner," said the inquiry.
"The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution," it added.
"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence," said the probe. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/council-evidence-israel-flotilla-raid/
This UN report clearly makes a mockery of the BBC sham and all who were taken in by it.
This will show you how:Documentary quote (italics) with comments below
‘Now Israel says they were terrorists, but Turkey insists they were innocent victims.’
‘…and now we’re facing them as terrorists.’
‘they were terrorists plain and simple’
The casual description of passengers as ‘terrorists’ has gone without any challenge at all in the programme. There is not even an attempt to provide a definition of the term.
One common definition is
‘violence used against civilians to achieve political ends.’
By this definition attacks on soldiers are not terrorism, although attacks by soldiers can be.
According to the CIA
‘Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.’
Here the importance of legality can be seen and the complete avoidance of this issue is a serious failing of the programme. Clearly a ruling is required on this and the most eminent and highly qualified investigation currently appointed to do this is the UN Human Rights Council’s fact finding mission, which Israel is determined to sideline and avoid at all costs. (Why? Turkey and the flotilla organisers have expressed no reservations about this committee.)
Allowing Israeli military personnel, some of whom may have killed or wounded flotilla passengers, to freely use the word ‘terrorist’ against their civilian assailants, without consideration of the fact that under international law the Israeli operation may itself have been an act of state terrorism to which the defence was perfectly legal, is a serious failing on the part of the programme.
This was biased, misleading and unfair reportage that was quite possibly inaccurate as well.
‘Naval Commando 13 has never been filmed by the media in action before’
Not true. They appear in action in the Cultures of Resistance video footage of the raid, which was obviously filmed before the Panorama documentary. Also the Panorama film is not strictly ‘in action’ but features training exercises.
Panorama should not make claims which are blatantly untrue.
‘chainsaws’
These were actually angle grinders or disc cutters. They were never used as weapons but as tools to cut the Israeli grappling hooks.
This was not made clear in the programme which gives a misleading impression that perhaps chainsaws were used against the commandos.
‘axes’
Although this is often claimed by Israeli sources, including Mr Netanyahu, there is no evidence to corroborate the programme’s assertion that axes were used.
* Axes cannot be seen in any of the video footage so far released.
* None of the commandos that were captured appear to have suffered injuries which could be attributed to axes. (Israel has not released any information regarding the other six wounded commandos.)
* No one from the flotilla has ever spoken of axes being used to defend the ship.
* The fire axes which appear in the weapons caches shown by the IDF have no traces of blood or material on them. No used axes have ever been produced.
Panorama claims to have ‘meticulously double and cross checked for accuracy’ and should have picked up this error.
‘people being thrown overboard’
Two soldiers were rolled over the parapet of the upper (fifth) deck and dropped onto the third (about 4.5 m drop). Two soldiers jumped 8m off the bow into the water of their own volition upon release from captivity. But no soldier was ever thrown overboard.
Three passengers reported that dead bodies were thrown overboard but this is probably erroneous since Greta Berlin said on 13 July that everyone had been accounted for.
This false allegation should have been corrected.
’Fifty passengers were wounded including nine Israeli soldiers’
The videos released in conjunction with the Eiland report state that 55 activists were injured. This does not include Israeli soldiers.
The report appears to suggest that there were forty-one wounded civilians, which is an underestimate of fourteen. The official Israeli figure has been available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website since 12 July.
‘…the results are surprisingly low.’
‘I don’t think the force was excessive.’
The provisional Turkish autopsy described the injuries to the nine dead as gunshot wounds to:
* back of the head, side of the face, back, left leg. (4)
* chest, belly, right leg, right arm, twice in left hand (6)
* right temple, chest, hip and back (4)
* twice in head, twice in left leg, back (5)
* single shot to middle of the forehead (1)
* single wound to the front of the neck (1)
* head, hip and belly (3)
* chest and three times in the legs (4)
* shoulder and back (2)
Fifty-five other passengers were injured, fourteen of them seriously. In total the number of passengers killed or injured on the ‘Mavi Marmara’ was in excess of 10 percent and this despite the fact that the large majority of the passengers did not join in the forceful defence of the ship.
A summary of the results of the initial autopsy report have been available since early June and yet the programme has not referred to them, neither was Gen Eiland confronted with them. There was merely a limp query of his statement which effectively allowed his misleading assertion to stand.
‘The world does not necessarily want to know exactly what happened.’
Israel is trying hard to see that the world does not know exactly what happened. It is obstructing or neutering all investigations, in particular the UN Human Rights Council fact finding mission. (See JC51 p.14/I below.)
This is another controversial opinion. Allowing it to stand uncontested is misleading and biased.
‘The ship sailed under the banner of the Free Gaza movement.’
For the record the ship carried a large banner of its owners, IHH.
‘Hamas which rules here, refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist’
This is a simplistic summation of a complex situation which was inaccurate and unnecessary and would have been best left unsaid. Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh has expressed a willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which presupposes an Israeli state. Hamas is not prepared to recognise the present Israeli state particularly since it has no set borders and is disposed to encroach on Palestinian land. States do not make declarations of each other’s right to exist. Israel’s illegal and expanding West Bank settlements make the existence of a future Palestinian state increasingly unlikely.
This statement was misleading and unfair (and unnecessary).
‘Militants have fired rockets at civilian targets in Israel in the last few years.’
This is only one side of the story. Since late 2000 Israeli gunboats have been waging undeclared war on Gazan fishermen legally fishing within the 20 mile limit stipulated in the Oslo Accords. Israel has used machine gun and water cannon against the unarmed fishermen causing the deaths of at least fourteen and injuries to over 200 between 2000 and January 2009. Between January 2010 and April 2010 nineteen attacks by the Israel Navy were recorded, destroying boats and nets.
Israel attacks on the Gaza Strip occur almost on a daily basis. Between 1 January 2010 and 31 July 2010 thirty-seven Gazans were killed, 93 injured and 41 taken prisoner by the Israeli army. During the same period Israel mounted 101 attacks on land, 13 bulldozer strikes, 75 aerial bombardments and 27 naval bombardments against Gaza.
Around 30% of the cultivatable land of Gaza cannot be worked because of attacks using live fire on the farmers by the IDF.
There was no attempt at balance here, and the statement made in isolation is grossly unfair, misleading and biased.
‘Israel allows in hardly any cement and steel in case they are used to make weapons and bunkers.’
Israel does indeed claim that Gazan militants would make rockets from cement but this is a blatant absurdity. The material is totally inappropriate for this use. Likewise the suggestion that bunkers would be made from these materials is untenable, such bunkers would very quickly attract Israeli airstrikes and both sides know it. In reality this is an excuse to deny the entry of reconstruction materials into Gaza, and is contrary to the Geneva Conventions.
This is an inaccurate and misleading statement.
‘Western authorities have accused them [IHH] of having links to terrorist organisations. They strongly deny this.’
This is tenuous at best. There appear to be only three ‘western authorities’.
* A frequently quoted CIA report of 1996 on IHH terror links names the organisation as International Humanitaire Hilfsorganization and says it has headquarters in Germany. This is in fact is an unrelated organisation which was proscribed in Germany on 12 July 2010. This source can therefore be discounted.
(The Turkish organisation has not been designated as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’ by the U.S. and on 26 July 2010 an official in the State Department denied that there was any intention to do so.)
* Jean-Louis Bruguière was formerly head of the French judiciary’s counterterrorism unit. M Bruguière has alleged links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups by people working in IHH in the 1990s. But in a telephone call after the raid the judge was unable to indicate any current links. The judge was responsible for a raid on the charity’s offices in Istanbul looking for explosives and guns, although IHH leaders point out that no guns were found and no one was convicted. M Bruguière himself is a controversial figure. Despite his successful hunt for Carlos the Jackal he has earned himself the description of ‘voyou judiciaire’ (judicial lout) following dubious and controversial investigations in Rwanda and the bombing of a UTA flight over the Sahara Desert in 1989.
* The third source is a paper authored by Evan Kohlmann for the Danish Institute for International Studies which draws heavily on the work of M Bruguière.
There is no credible evidence to back up the accusations and there are no accusations that are current. The U.S. administration has concerns about IHH links with Hamas but it must be remembered that IHH is a major aid donor to Gaza where Hamas is the government in power. Working contacts with Hamas are unavoidable in these circumstances. This does not in any way constitute links with terrorism.
However there are more credible terrorist links to the state of Israel which has widely and credibly (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Goldstone report) been accused of assassinations, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, theft of resources (including natural gas and water), attacks on Gazan fishermen, attacks on shipping (e.g. between Cyprus and Lebanon) and apartheid. In addition Commando 13 is widely supposed to have blown up the MV Sol Phryne in Limassol harbour in 1988.
By referring to vague accusations of terrorist links against IHH from only one principle source while refraining from mention of any of the numerous allegations against the state of Israel Ms Corbin has demonstrated partiality.
‘They [the Israel Navy] offered to take the aid to an Israeli port and deliver it to Gaza’
The flotilla told the Israel Navy that the cargo had been checked at the point of departure and that it would be willing to submit to additional checks by a neutral body such as the UN or the International Committee of the Red Cross.
On two previous occasions Israel has forced at gunpoint aid ships for Gaza to reroute via Ashdod. In February 2009 the Tali was rerouted there with 50 tonnes of food and medical supplies. Only a small quantity of this was transferred on to Gaza. Similarly the Spirit of Humanity was rerouted into Ashdod in June 2009. Food, toys and construction materials amongst the cargo never arrived in Gaza and are presumed to have been destroyed.
Ms Corbin made no mention of the counter proposals, nor the reason why the flotilla was keen to avoid Israeli control of the cargos, thereby giving the false impression that the flotilla organisers were acting provocatively and unreasonably.
‘Part of it was defiant and abusive.’
This is stated as a fact when it is disputed. Neither is it mentioned that Israel has admitted to doctoring the tapes, or that the recording was originally broadcast by the IDF on 31 May without the abusive comments, four days before the allegations emerged. However the programme fails to mention that the flotilla had complained that Israeli operatives swore at them in Turkish and English over the maritime radio for several hours before the start of the raid.
This was biased reportage.
‘The flotilla organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.’
Not accurate: the organisers insist the comments were not made. The organisers have also pointed out that the complete marine radio broadcasts were recorded on the radio of MV Challenger I and the tape was seized by the IDF. They have challenged the Israeli authorities to produce the recording if they have nothing to hide. So far the Israelis are playing it both ways, they have not produced the evidence but they continue to make the uncorroborated allegations.
The reduction of emphasis is unfair.
‘For the Israelis this was a warning sign that things would not go smoothly’.
If the organiser’s denials are correct then there was no such warning sign.
The assumption here, on no credible evidence, that the rogue marine broadcasts were made is unfair and perpetuates the earlier bias.
‘Late that night it was clear to the crew of the ship that a core group of IHH organisers had taken control of the Mavi Marmara.’
There was no hint at all about this from Captain Tural who said ‘IHH has shown that they are as much sensitive as the ship crew when it comes to avoiding any provocative actions onboard.’ Captain Tural has not made any complaint about the behaviour of IHH or their organisers and there is no testimony from the Mavi Marmara to corroborate this Israeli allegation that IHH took control of the ship (which belongs to them anyway).
This assertion is inaccurate and unfair.
Jane Corbin failed to mention:
* The interview was secretly filmed without the knowledge of the Chief Engineer.
* There were several hours of interrogation where the same questions were asked repeatedly.
It was misleading not to have mentioned these details.
‘The IHH definitely didn’t let people they didn’t know move around the ship.
Jamal Elshayyal said that he had been allowed access to ‘every single centimetre of the ship’. Passengers had been asked to stay below by the organisers.
This latter request had not been enforced. For example Nicola Enchmarch[xxii] and Fatima Mohammadi[xxiii] had been on the upper decks when shooting with live fire occurred.
No journalist has ever said they were refused access to any part of the ship.
The assertion is untrue and this should have been discovered by the cross checking procedures.
‘someone swinging a chain’
This was an attempt to deflect or catch the Israeli grappling hook rather than a threat to the soldiers.
‘The commandos inside were armed with non-lethal weapons’
The commandos also boarded with carbines and submachine guns.
The footage from Cultures of Resistance shows lasers scanning the deck. These are from the sights of weapons in the helicopter, which will not be from a paintball gun or pistol but from something like an M4 or M16 held by a marksman.
This is a serious inaccuracy.
‘They couldn’t abseil down’
Not true. Only one rope was tied, the other was used. This can be seen on the IDF video footage.
This line of questioning suggests that the commandos were engaged in a legitimate operation. There is no mention or implication of the fact that the defenders of the ship believed that they were acting within international maritime law in trying to repel an illegal and violent assault on the ship. If their understanding of the law is correct, they had every right to disrupt the descent of the commandos by tying up the ropes. Their opinion is supported by (amongst others)
* Prof Richard Falk,
* Prof Norman Paech,
* Lawyers for Palestinian Rights,
* Diakonia.
Israeli authorities have cited the San Ramo Manual to justify the assault, cf Ruth Lapidoth. However Prof Lapidoth cherry picks the document and avoids any reference to Articles 36-42, 47, 102/3, 119 and 124, all of which are prejudicial to her case.
The failure to consider the legality of the raid, particularly in the context of the statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 14 June 2010 in which it said that Israel’s closure of the Gaza Strip was a violation of international law, resulted in many misleading statements made throughout the programme.
Transcript: ‘footage shows a photo of soldier on ground side covered in blood, next to man holding knife’
There are blood stains but the soldier is not ‘covered in blood’. The knife has not been used. There are no blood stains on it, and it is not being held aggressively. It is almost certainly a knife taken off the commando. (The commandos had all their kit, helmets, weapons, etc removed before they were taken, or in this man’s case carried, down to the second deck for first aid treatment.)
The transcript makes an unfair exaggeration which misleads and encourages the false assumption that the knife has been used on the commando or is being used as a threat.
‘They [IHH] say the Israelis started using live fire at the start of the operation.’
‘they [Israelis] insist their audio shows the commandos did not use live rounds until they were shot at.’
There is not much doubt about this. The commandos started firing before anyone descended from the first helicopter. In so doing they killed two people on the deck. The eye witnesses include
* Captain of the Mavi Marmara,
· Jamal Elshayyal, journalist,
· Prof Mattias Gardell,
· Ken O’Keefe,
· Ismail Patel,
· Fatima Mohammad, lawyer,
http://bpc-world.co.uk/2010/08/commentary-on-bbc-panorama-program/
3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXrzF0IOQYE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfo91FQVr7MComments
-
-
Ken O'Keefe's response,
http://pulsemedia.org/2010/08/21/an-open-letter-to-bbc-panoramas-jane-corbin/
Ken O'Keefe is one of the few people I genuinely look up to in this world, he cares so passionately about all of mankind. As a US marine he would have been heavily indoctrinated but he ended up being risking his own life to save others by being a human-shield in Iraq. Can you begin to imagine the anger you'd feel if you were bringing aid to an opressed people and you were ambushed at sea, with members of your unarmed party executed by the very same oppressor, shackled you up, illegaly detained you, stole from you, beat you, tried to portray you as a terrorist and then blame you for the mass-murder that they committed.
Here he is talking about 911
0 -
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »Ken O'Keefe is one of the few people I genuinely look up to in this world...
Here he is talking about 911
Ken O'Keefe is a prize plonker. He's enough of a pain that you'd be sorely tempted to reconsider your position if you found yourself on the same side on any issue. Shame on the IDF for giving him a beating, but you couldn't be suprised that he happened to be the victim - the mix of strident misplaced egoism with the loopy ideological beliefs would surely drive Ghandi to give him a kick in the nuts.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Just thought i would add this
havent had a chance to view the video's, cant in work... but this report seems to indicate that the there was IHH operatives on board (IHH are supposed to be linked to Turkish Jiahist group) preparing for a fight two hours before boarding by the IDF....
videos supposedly from Crew members
http://www.crethiplethi.com/video-recordings-of-statements-from-mavi-marmara-crew-members/israel/2010/
I have an inkling that site might be just a teeny weeny bit biased robtri.
We used these names, the Crethi and the Plethi, because they were defenders and loyal guards of the first jewish nation in Israel with Jerusalem as capital.
They even use a similar seal as MOSSAD ffs! :pac:
Crethiplethi
MOSSAD
They even have a "Royal Guard of Israel" logo on that account.
So back to the IHH are terrorists fabrication. Here is some of the worldwide charity work that I have posted previously.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055955547&highlight=terrorists
You may notice that you yourself actually posted in that thread but unfortunately you jumped to false conclusions regarding my motivations rather than actually take the information in.
If you don't bother to click on the link this time at least take this from it. In the top picture (below) the guy with tending to the hardly hurt IDF commando is an IHH doctor, Dr. Hasan Huseyin Uysal.
This is his testimony (in part):
Source: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/turkish-doctor-describes-treating-israeli-commandos-during-raid/First of all it’s against logic that these soldiers would not be killed but instead be taken to the medical center if the intention of the activists was to kill them. If people on board were so eager to hurt them, why would they not just shoot them to death once they had taken their guns? Why bother carting them inside for treatment? It just doesn’t add up.
I am a doctor, and the Israeli soldiers were brought to me to check their medical situation and treat them properly. I had our dead bodies and injured people lying in front of me and I was treating the soldiers that actually killed and wounded them. None of our friends in the center approached to harm or hurt them. Our injured people were lying on the ground, but I rested the soldiers on our chairs.
None of the soldiers had any fatal wounds that would cause organ loss or defects. There were scratches on their faces, but since facial skin is sensitive and very likely to bleed in any trauma, there was blood on their faces — which I cleaned carefully to see what kind of injuries they had. In the end, they happened to be only scratches.
The third soldier, however, suffered a cut in his stomach that reached his stomach membrane but not the organ itself. It was nothing fatal. As a doctor, I wouldn’t want to guess the nature of this injury but it could have been caused by either landing on a sharp pole from the helicopter or a blow from a pipe with a sharp edge. I couldn’t tell.
In either case, it was not fatal but it had to be stitched. However, since we did not ever expect such a confrontation, we had not brought any stitching equipment on board. All we had was simple medical material to dress simple wounds, or drops to ease burning in case tear gas was used. If I had stitching material with me, although I am an eye doctor, I would have treated the boy properly in accordance with my general medical knowledge. I couldn’t.
Also from that article is the testimony of the guy beside him the doctor Murat Akinan, an IHH volunteer. This is him leading the same commando to treatment.
Mr. Akinan said that the captured soldier had been entrusted to him by Bulent Yildirim, the director of the Turkish aid organization I.H.H., who said: “Murat, take him and make sure that he’ll be safe. Be careful, don’t allow anyone to touch him.”
So, Mr. Akinan said, “I took him downstairs yelling, ‘Stop! No one will touch this man entrusted to me.’ ”
He added: “I called the doctor on board and asked him for treatment. Two more soldiers came. People were reacting. I had all three treated. I said to two to three wise people around me that we would not allow anyone to touch them.”
So as can be clearly be seen the IHH SAVED the lives of the Israeli commandos sent to kill them. A work of CHARITY you might say; hardly the acts of terrorists.
Now compare the above to the recently published UN report (found here) into the massacre.
From page 30 and 31:Furkan Dogan, a nineteen-year old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range.
Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were
most likely received in a standing position.
Furkan Dogan?brahim Bilgen, a 60 year old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time without medical attention.
Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.Fahri Yaldiz, a 42 year old Turkish citizen from Adiyaman, received five bullet wounds, one to the chest, one to the left leg and three to the right leg. The chest wound was caused by a bullet that entered near the left nipple and hit the heart and lungs before exiting from the shoulder. This injury would have caused rapid death.According to the pathology report, Ali Heyder Bengi, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Diyarbakir, received six bullet wounds (one in the chest, one in the abdomen, one in the right arm, one in the right thigh and two in the left hand). One bullet lodged in the chest area.
None of the wounds would have been instantly fatal, but damage to the liver caused bleeding which would have been fatal if not stemmed. There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back and chest at close range while he was lying on the deck as a consequence of initial bullet wounds.Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck.
According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.41 year old Cengiz Akyüz from Hatay and 46 year old Cengiz Songür from Izmir, both Turkish citizens, were injured on the bridge deck in close succession by live fire from above. They had been sheltering and were shot as they attempted to move inside the door leading to the stairwell. Cengiz Akyüz received a shot to the head and it is probable that he died instantly.
The pathology report shows four wounds: to the neck, face, chest and thigh. Cengiz Songür received a single bullet to the upper central thorax below the neck, shot from a high angle, which lodged in the right thoracic cavity injuring the heart and aorta. Unsuccessful efforts were made by doctors inside the ship to resuscitate him through heart massage.Çetin Topçuoglu, a 54 year old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, exited from the neck and then re-entered into the thorax. Another bullet entered the left buttock and lodged in the right pelvis. The third entered the right groin and exited from the lower back. There are indications that the victim may have been in a crouching or bending position when this wound was sustained.The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Yildirim, a 31 year old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back. The trajectory of both bullets was from top to bottom. He also received bruises consistent with plastic bullet impact
Now taking this into account...
WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
CokaColumbo wrote: »When I say potentially, I mean that there is a very real possibility that shots were in fact fired at Israeli soldiers. Don't be so cheap as to get wrapped up in semantics.
Well there is no possibility that there were guns on board before the Isrealis attacked.
Ken O'Keefe and some others disarmed some of the commandos, unloaded the guns and threw them into the ocean. The commados, one of whom is pictured above where then taken for medical treatment.
If any of the IDF murderers were shot it would be their own faults, or more accurately their governments for invading a ship of civilian volunteers in international waters.
Actually, on-topic
Systemathically? not a chance. The civilians acted in self defence against the commandos, as is their right.CokaColumbo wrote: »Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?
Why would I disagree to that? I've just posted a link to a Turkish doctor talking about a solider who had been stabbed.CokaColumbo wrote: »Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?it could have been caused by either landing on a sharp pole from the helicopter or a blow from a pipe with a sharp edge
Again self defense.
I suppose when you say stabbing you mean by crazy Islamacists like him:
Here he is in friendlier days -
He is a Yemeni MP and that was a ceremonial dagger.CokaColumbo wrote: »Do you disagree that the commandos had no original intention of taking life?
Ha! Not a chance! They came with exactly the intention of taking life. How else would you explain the multiple top of the head shots from the autopsy according to the UN fact-finding mission? And the corrobarating witness testimony claiming that the Israelis carried out summary executions from the helicopter hovering above. BEFORE they ever even boarded.CokaColumbo wrote: »Do you disagree with the fact that the activists were the ones who instigated the violence and took every opportunity prior to the boarding to provoke the IDF?
That's a laugh.
Unless you mean highlighting a brutal occupation and bringing aid to those brutally opressed is somehow "provoking".
Either way, your wrong.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »
Eh no - unless you're suggesting he was killed by a bean bag shotgun? That's not live ammo being used in that video.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aGJlXuavk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxMExwhO6jQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv59_J2sp_0
Advertisement