Pro-Israel BBC bias on Flotilla Massacre documentary.

Brown Bomber

The impact of deception.

meglome wrote: »

Cause they didn't just come up and shoot people indiscriminately obviously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXrzF0IOQYE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfo91FQVr7M

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/

squod

Ken O'Keefe's response,
http://pulsemedia.org/2010/08/21/an-open-letter-to-bbc-panoramas-jane-corbin/

Brown Bomber

squod wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aGJlXuavk

harryd2

Panorama has really gone to the dogs for the last few years..
Used to be a well balanced production, now it's just sensationalist tabloidy junk..
I'm surpised at the BBC (again) letting this junk out..
More evidence of the 'impartial' BBC been biased.
Like during the pre-Iraq invasion protests on the streets of London.
BBC's coverage was considerably less than other media sources..

alastair

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aGJlXuavk

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.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

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.

Yeah good job, smear the victim and ignore the "incredible violence" according to the UN.

joebucks

Everything on the BBC should be treated with a degree of skepticism. The Rothschild's have a lot of influence of the board. It has been reported that Evelyn De Rothschild sits on some of the boards. But also the husband of Katherine De Rothschild is also a non-executive director

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius

CokaColumbo

There was almost universal condemnation of Israel in the wake of the flotilla incident (from myself included) before the facts of the situation had been established. People just wanted to blame Israel and this incident demonstrated that there is a deep anti-Israel bias in the Western media.

The fact is that the Israeli commandos went on to the ship with the specific intention of not killing anybody. They were armed with stun grenades and paint-ball guns. As soon as they landed on the ship, they were systematically beaten, stabbed and, potentially, shot at. They defended themselves from those who wanted to kill them. The IDF took all reasonable precautions in avoiding armed conflict.

The people on that ship were not motivated to help ordinary Gaza citizens. If they were, they would have allowed the IDF to deliver the aid itself to Gaza. They were there to make a political statement against Israel and had the pre-meditated intention of violently resisting any attempt by Israel to change the ships course.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxMExwhO6jQ

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?

Brown Bomber

CokaColumbo wrote: »

There was almost universal condemnation of Israel in the wake of the flotilla incident (from myself included) before the facts of the situation had been established. People just wanted to blame Israel and this incident demonstrated that there is a deep anti-Israel bias in the Western media.

The fact is that the Israeli commandos went on to the ship with the specific intention of not killing anybody. They were armed with stun grenades and paint-ball guns. As soon as they landed on the ship, they were systematically beaten, stabbed and, potentially, shot at. They defended themselves from those who wanted to kill them. The IDF took all reasonable precautions in avoiding armed conflict.

The people on that ship were not motivated to help ordinary Gaza citizens. If they were, they would have allowed the IDF to deliver the aid itself to Gaza. They were there to make a political statement against Israel and had the pre-meditated intention of violently resisting any attempt by Israel to change the ships course.

I was potentially shot at hundred of times today alone!

I walked past hundreds of unarmed civilians :rolleyes:

Read this http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-89K5LU?OpenDocument
If you want to establish the facts.

robtri

source is just as biased as some sources u have produced on boards....
there are two sides to each story... both sides will be biased...

no offence here but you have spoke about all the testimonies from the crew... well that is the most biased source of information....

so why are you allowed used biased sources and no one else...?????

un report not included in this point...

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

source is just as biased as some sources u have produced on boards....
there are two sides to each story... both sides will be biased...

no offence here but you have spoke about all the testimonies from the crew... well that is the most biased source of information....

so why are you allowed used biased sources and no one else...?????

un report not included in this point...

Fair enough robtri and I appreciate you being civil in your response and not taking my post the wrong way because it is open to being misinterpreted.

The point I was trying to make is that the group/site you linked are openly an Israeli advocacy group, possibly professional hasbara. The truth is you are at least partly right in what you've just said so I'll comment on the content.

That testimony as you put it is actually an interrogation and a pschyological assault on a man who has just witnessed a massacre, has being illegally detained in a country he never had any intention of visiting. He had been shackled for hours on his knees in the mediteranean sun and thrown into a jail cell without any form of due process or respect for his humanitarian or international rights. Has been questioned repeatedly and finally told his captors what they wanted to hear a la 1984.

By your thinking the Guilford Four should never have been released.

EDIT: NOw that i think of it the BBC used some of the same footage in "investigative" report. Any idea why the "neutral BBC and an Israeli advocacy group might use the same footage to make the same point?

CokaColumbo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was potentially shot at hundred of times today alone!

I walked past hundreds of unarmed civilians :rolleyes:

Read this http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-89K5LU?OpenDocument
If you want to establish the facts.

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.

Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?
Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?
Do you disagree that the commandos had no original intention of taking life?
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?

These are some of the points which should have made up the body of your response. Alas, you did not deal with any of my points!

Brown Bomber

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv59_J2sp_0

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?

Systemathically? not a chance. The civilians acted in self defence against the commandos, as is their right.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?

Why would I disagree to that? I've just posted a link to a Turkish doctor talking about a solider who had been 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.

Phill Ewinn

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.

Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?
Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?
Do you disagree that the commandos had no original intention of taking life?
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?

These are some of the points which should have made up the body of your response. Alas, you did not deal with any of my points!

I'm not getting your point here. Can I be so bold as to summarize? After a failed attempted at piracy and kidnap using threats of violence, the next logical step is to murder people?
You wouldn't consider another non lethal option first. Regroup and try a different approach?

namloc1980

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.

Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?
Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?
Do you disagree that the commandos had no original intention of taking life?
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?

These are some of the points which should have made up the body of your response. Alas, you did not deal with any of my points!

The Israelis should never have been on board in the first place. They hijacked a ship(s) under foreign flag from international waters. Even the UN (who normally don't criticise Israel) have said the blockade, and thus the hijacking boarding, was illegal.

harryd2

CokaColumbo wrote: »

There was almost universal condemnation of Israel in the wake of the flotilla incident (from myself included) before the facts of the situation had been established. .

Yep even before the other side of the story had been heard. The IDF confiscated the majority of the records of the incident, and only released the ones they wanted (including forged communications with one of the flotilla boats) to support their own agenda.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

this incident demonstrated that there is a deep anti-Israel bias in the Western media..

Such as the BBC above, or the notoriously pro-Palestine US press?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

They were armed with stun grenades and paint-ball guns..

And pistols.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The fact is that the Israeli commandos went on to the ship with the specific intention of not killing anybody. .

Clearly that's why nobody was killed.. oh wait..

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The people on that ship were not motivated to help ordinary Gaza citizens. If they were, they would have allowed the IDF to deliver the aid itself to Gaza. .

Minus much of it such as cement, paper, chocolate, tinned fruit - all of which were banned from Gaza.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

They were there to make a political statement against Israel.

And the issue?
It was a political statement. And the next one will be moreso.

You're not Jewish by any chance?

robtri

anybody got a link to this UN report??? trying to find a final copy of it and cant???

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

anybody got a link to this UN report??? trying to find a final copy of it and cant???

Varsägod!
linked here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68238851&postcount=10

joebucks

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Varsägod!
l

Prata du svenska ocksa? jattebra kompis!

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Varsägod!
linked here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68238851&postcount=10

thanks, that is an advance unedited copy, not finished and possibly not correct and missing parts , is there a final copy??????

gizmo

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.

Do you disagree that the Israelis were systematically beaten with iron bars as soon as they landed on the vessel?
Do you disagree that Israelis were stabbed?
Do you disagree that the commandos had no original intention of taking life?
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?

These are some of the points which should have made up the body of your response. Alas, you did not deal with any of my points!

Do you disagree with the fact that the IDF should never have been on the bloody flotilla to begin with since their blockade is completely illegal?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Furkan Dogan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxMExwhO6jQ

Eh no - unless you're suggesting he was killed by a bean bag shotgun? That's not live ammo being used in that video.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is all well and good but any sites or information published in these sites have nothing to do with me or your problem with me using the word "Jew". Don't know why you brought it up.

I brought it up as I'm interested in your fascination with Israel and Jews generally. There are a lot of terrible regimes around the world, a lot of terrible things happen but you seem fixated on Israel. Though it's not the topic at hand.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look your understanding of events is completely wrong, but that is not what I am trying to discuss with you. You put yourself forward as a beacon of logic and reason in this thread and others, claiming you are guided by evidence only, a true skeptic if you like. The point I am trying to get through to you, and I really wish you understood it the first time because now it feels like I am harrassing you is: you completely bought into the transparently biased and skewed version of events put forward by the BBC/IDF for the massacre of civilians on the Mavi Marmara to the point that you defend mass murder. Now, that is not sceptical at all, to be frank it is naive. My question to you is what makes you sure you aren't actually being just as easily fooled by lies and deception regarding 911 and related events?

Look as I've said I don't think Israel had any right to board that ship. However it's the use of the words massacre and mass murder that I have issue with. People died, no question about that. They died in an illegal action by Israel, no question about that. But I've seen nothing that points to a massacre or mass murder.

The reason I'm sure that I'm not being fooled and deceived about 911 is evidence. You love to use emotive words and make dramatic statements especially about Israel but you still haven't explained how that documentary is biased. Maybe you'll explain?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've started another thread on it. It's not based on the information at the time. They BBC had all the resources and information of the UN report linked above plus access to the IDF. It is not possible that I knew more than the panaroma team and it's team of researchers at the time is it?

I'd need to go and check the dates but didn't that documentary come out before the UN report?

alastair

meglome wrote: »

I'd need to go and check the dates but didn't that documentary come out before the UN report?

Yes it did.

And it's worth pointing out that the UN Humanitarian report only got one side of the story. Regardless of your opinions regarding the boarding of the flotilla (and I'm of the opinion it was both illegal and ill-advised), there's generally little benefit in reporting just one side's position in a dispute. Israel didn't co-operate with the inquiry/report, so it's undermined from the start.

The BBC piece seems pretty even handed and accurate.

CokaColumbo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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........

Your arguments are infallible. I cannot find faults with any of your claims. Engaging you further in debate would just accentuate my complete ignorance and prejudice in regards to Israel and Palestine, not the other way around. You win. I lose.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'm not getting your point here. Can I be so bold as to summarize? After a failed attempted at piracy and kidnap using threats of violence, the next logical step is to murder people?
You wouldn't consider another non lethal option first. Regroup and try a different approach?

The Israelis tried to peacefully turn the ship back on numerous occasions. This was met by provocation from the Mavi Marmara. They were left with no choice but to board the ship. They boarded it with stun grenades and paint ball guns with pistols for use as personal protection.
As soon as they landed on the upper decks of the ship, they were met by iron bars and knifes, both of which were used against the commandos before any firing took place. The Israelis rightfully feared for their lives and took appropriate action to protect themselves. Considering the circumstances, they were right to use lethal force.

They did not seek to kill people. They acted in self defence and all the evidence supports that. There were five other ships in the flotilla; not a single person was seriously injured during the bording of the five other ships.

Those on board the ship wished for a violent encounter, some even wished to die a martyrs death. They attacked the commandos (who, thanks to the activists, had no choice but to board the ship in the first place) and then ran to the world media portraying themselves as the victims even though it was the actions of the activists which escalated the situation into a violent conflict.

It was never the primary intention of the activists to help the people of Gaza. First and foremost, they wanted to provoke and make a political statement against Israel, hiding behind terms like "humanitarianism", "peaceful resistance", and "aid".

gizmo wrote: »

Do you disagree with the fact that the IDF should never have been on the bloody flotilla to begin with since their blockade is completely illegal?

Yes, I agree, the blockade is against the law. But is there a practical necessity to have the blockade in the first place? The answer to that is yes as well. The Israelis want to protect their citizens from attacks, thousands of which have occurred over the last ten years, carried out by Palestinians who want to wipe every Jew off the face of this earth (this a constitutional aim in the case of some Islamic states). The blockade has been very effective in preventing this. If Hamas etc. didn't try to murder all those 'Zionist infidels', the blockade would not have been necessitated.

There is no "conspiracy" here. Giving Israel an equal platform, something which is so lacking in the Western media today, does not equal a conspiracy. If you people believed in the truth, you would dwell on the fact that the western world, and myself included, blamed Israel for the flotilla incident before any facts had been properly established. I am pleased that this BBC documentary was even handed and didn't misrepresent the position of Israel as is often the case.

Torakx

The BBC report was pretty biased.
She left out important facts and added in comments that were leading.
Saying they boarded with non letha weapons,paintguns and stun guns...and also pistols.. LOL
Even watching it i spotted that contradiction,but there was a lot of stuff i did not know about and found out from the debunk vid instead.

It was obvious that they were going to encounter the IDF and be boarded.They were prepared for a fight or should have been or else prepared to surrender.
Either way you look at it by law they should not have been stopped at all.
All injuries and deaths are because of the breaking of those international laws.But instead the people on the ship are branded terrorists as a forethought at the start of the show.
The UN should be escorting ships through the blockade.
But we all know this wont happen if it conflicts with what Israel and America want.

alastair

Torakx wrote: »

The BBC report was pretty biased.
She left out important facts and added in comments that were leading.
Saying they boarded with non letha weapons,paintguns and stun guns...and also pistols.. LOL .

?? Is there a contradiction? Did they not board with non-lethal weapons, and use those non-lethal weapons rather than their side arms?

Torakx wrote: »

But instead the people on the ship are branded terrorists as a forethought at the start of the show.

No they are not - it's made clear that Israel declared them terrorists - a position not supported by the Turkish government. Both factual and contextual statements, devoid of any reporting bias.

harryd2

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It was never the primary intention of the activists to help the people of Gaza. First and foremost, they wanted to provoke and make a political statement

The purpose of the flotilla was twofold. Both a political statement and a humanitatian mission. Are these two mutually exclusive ?
What's wrong with making a political statement?
Next one will be moreso a polical statment than a humanitarian mission.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

But is there a practical necessity to have the blockade in the first place? The answer to that is yes

Is it necessary to block paper, fruit, cement, medical supplies?
It's an apartheid regime.
As their Prime Minister says “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable”

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Palestinians who want to wipe every Jew off the face of this earth
If Hamas etc. didn't try to murder all those 'Zionist infidels'.

This is the view of extermists.
Do you also belive most Muslims support 9/11 ?
I think you'll find most Palestinans don't want to wipe every Jew off the face of the planet.
They are happy to conceed a 2-state solution. But apartheid Israel won't accept it.

Did they not board with non-lethal weapons, and use those non-lethal weapons rather than their side arms?

No they killed people with LETHAL Weapons.

studiorat

harryd2 wrote: »

I think you'll find most Palestinans don't want to wipe every Jew off the face of the planet.
They are happy to conceed a 2-state solution. But apartheid Israel won't accept it.

Pity their Government aren't then isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM

harryd2

studiorat wrote: »

Pity their Government aren't then isn't it?

Their government are willing to accept a 2-state solution.
They have conceded on almost all points during negotiations with Israel,
they just want a home for themselves, but apartheid Israel won't allow it.
Gaza was able to make some life for themselves by exporting flowers,
until Israel blocked that too.

Brown Bomber

joebucks wrote: »

Prata du svenska ocksa? jattebra kompis!

Shamefully not as well as you and I live here.

robtri wrote: »

thanks, that is an advance unedited copy, not finished and possibly not correct and missing parts , is there a final copy??????

That is all I have robtri. I'll keep you posted though.

Brown Bomber

Why are all the IDF cheerleaders ignoring this from the UN report?

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.
(...)
live fire from above.They had been sheltering
(...)
One bullet entered from the top
(...)
The trajectory of both bullets was from top to bottom. He also received bruises consistent with plastic bullet impact

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

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.

Are you surprised this passenger was the victim?

He was shot twice, and the IDF soliders were kicking his wounds and picking him up and dropping him on the ground. Or what about the woman who was punched three times in the face by a male Israeli? Did she deserve it because of her ideologies?

Robtri you should watch it too. I didn't know this either but apparently some of the commandos who committed the massacre were some of those who took part in the interrogation of the passengers.

CokaColumbo

harryd2 wrote: »

Is it necessary to block paper, fruit, cement, medical supplies? It's an apartheid regime.

If you watch the documentary and review Israeli policy, you will note that the IDF does not seek to prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid, goods and supplies to Palestinian citizens. In the specific case of the flotilla incident, the IDF wished only to inspect the aid (which consisted of weapons also) and deliver it themselves to the Palestinians.

The blockade only exists because Palestinian groups used to (and still attempt to) use the sea to import munitions, ingredients and devices in order to produce weaponry for use against Israeli citizens. Since the blockade has been in place and Israel has inspected incoming cargo, the number of rocket attacks etc. against civilian Israelis has decreased significantly. You should also note that Israel has since relaxed the land-blockade.

And "Apartheid" is such an inapplicable word to describe the situation in the middle east. It is grossly offensive to those who do in fact suffer the ills of apartheid. Palestinians, and Muslims in general, who reside in Israel enjoy more rights and liberty than they do in their own countries. Look up the definition of apartheid and see how it conflicts with this fact.

harryd2 wrote: »

This is the view of extermists.
Do you also belive most Muslims support 9/11 ?
I think you'll find most Palestinans don't want to wipe every Jew off the face of the planet.
They are happy to conceed a 2-state solution. But apartheid Israel won't accept it.


No they killed people with LETHAL Weapons.

I didn't say anything about 9/11. I said that various Muslim governments have a stated goal of killing all the Jews in the middle east.
You are quick to distinguish ordinary Palestinians from the people they elect into office and give shelter to, but you are not so quick to do the same for Israelis. Think about why that is.

If you look at the most recent set of peace-talks between Israelis and Palestinians, it was none other than Hamas who massacred five Israeli civilians in a drive-by shooting on the eve of the talks, declaring the act, "heroic". Who was the victim there and who didn't want the talks to succeed?

Phill Ewinn

CokaColumbo wrote: »

They were left with no choice but to board the ship........... Considering the circumstances, they were right to use lethal force.

I don't even think this posts deserves a reply. However in the unlikely event that this is your honest belief I'll say this.

Pirates may forthwith be executed without any Solemnity of Condemnation, by the Marine Law

Is this the kind of outrageous consequence you're seeking? If murder, kidnap or piracy don't turn your stomach than you deserve no more of my time.

CokaColumbo added to the ignore list.

robtri

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I don't even think this posts deserves a reply. However in the unlikely event that this is your honest belief I'll say this.


Is this the kind of outrageous consequence you're seeking? If murder, kidnap or piracy don't turn your stomach than you deserve no more of my time.

CokaColumbo added to the ignore list.

you do know this is a discussion forum ....

or would u rather a forum where everyone thinks the same...

Brown Bomber

alastair 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.

You obviously don't read anything I post. Cognitive dissonance is a bytch aint it?

(again :rolleyes:) From the UN report regarding murder victim Ibrahim Bilgen.

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.

Defend that.

Besides...

This is the 9mm ammo the mini UZI's use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum.

Most of the murder victims and the wounded were shot with 9mm bullets. "A kind not used by Israeli commados. ". It's a joke and the jokes on you.

alastair

harryd2 wrote: »

No they killed people with LETHAL Weapons.

duh. You don't say?

What weapons did they use first?

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You obviously don't read anything I post. Cognitive dissonance is a bytch aint it?

(again :rolleyes:) From the UN report regarding murder victim Ibrahim Bilgen.



Defend that.

so the guy was shot with a standard non lethal weapon ( the irony is overwhelming here)
so it is quite plausible that the death was not intentional then..

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You obviously don't read anything I post. Cognitive dissonance is a bytch aint it?

(again :rolleyes:) From the UN report regarding murder victim Ibrahim Bilgen..

again :rolleyes: - Is Ibrahim Bilgen Furkan Dogan? No he isn't - was Furkan Dogan killed with a beanbag gun? No he was not. Does the video show the murder of Furkan Dogan? No it does not.

Phill Ewinn

robtri wrote: »

you do know this is a discussion forum ....

where posters have the option to choose not to listen to the rantings of hate.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Look as I've said I don't think Israel had any right to board that ship. However it's the use of the words massacre and mass murder that I have issue with. People died, no question about that. They died in an illegal action by Israel, no question about that. But I've seen nothing that points to a massacre or mass murder.

Don't want to get into the other off topic stuff right now but I wanted to address this.

It was by definition mass-murder and a massacre. It has nothing to with rhetoric or your or my opinions on what we consider a massacre or mass murder.

MASS MURDER

Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with mass destruction) is the act of murdering a large number of people (four or more), typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time.[1] (CHECK) According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. (CHECK) A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual.[2]

(CHECK)

Mass murder may be committed by individuals or organizations. (CHECK) Examples are the shooting of unarmed protestors, the carpet bombing of cities, the lobbing of grenades into prison cells and the random execution of civilians.[3]
(CHECK)

MASSACRE

1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. (CHECK)

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

again :rolleyes: - Is Ibrahim Bilgen Furkan Dogan? No he isn't - was Furkan Dogan killed with a beanbag gun? No he was not. Does the video show the murder of Furkan Dogan? No it does not.

Typical. It doesn't matter if the video shows his murder or not. it was someone in the video if not him. What is important and undeniable is that that Furkan Dogan was brutally murdered. So lets stop dancing around the periphary trying to pick holes in items that doesn't.

This is based on his autopsy report. I'd like you to explain the implications of the manner in which he died to me.

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.

Start with the:

1. Non violence of Dogan when he was shot: fillming with a camera
2. Shot in the back from the helicopter and lay unconscious/semi-conscious on the ship for a while
3. Some IDF murderous bastard finds the already dying Dogan and shoots him from point blank range in the face.

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

so the guy was shot with a standard non lethal weapon ( the irony is overwhelming here)

Is it possible to be overwhelmed with irony?

robtri wrote: »

so it is quite plausible that the death was not intentional then..

No. It is not plausible in any shape or form whatsoever.

I've posted this already. It is from the UN report and based on the official autopsy report.

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.

Points to note:

• Shot in the chest from the helicopter. i.e. before any IDF had boarded. Therefore not IDF self-defense.
• Shot twice more from behind again from the helicopter.
• He wouldn't have died if the Israelis opted to give him medical attention. Tragically instead...
• They choose to press a bean bag rifle to the dying and helpless mans head and execute him.

Quite clearly he was intentionally murdered. You wouldn't know it though if you trusted the panorama sham.

Brown Bomber

CokaColumbo wrote: »

your last 2 posts

Incredible amount of mis/disinformation or fabrication/ignorance of facts in your last two posts especially. Haven't got the will to demonstrate it just yet; I will though .

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Typical. It doesn't matter if the video shows his murder or not.

It does if you claim the video shows it. But I guess not if you really just want to rant and ignore the context of the post (that it doesn't show his killing).

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Points to note:

• Shot in the chest from the helicopter. i.e. before any IDF had boarded. Therefore not IDF self-defense.

Right - because the helicopters disappeared once the boarding began, and no aerial shooting occurred after that point. Oh wait...

Tell you what - try not to embellish the actual report with your own suppositions?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Right - because the helicopters disappeared once the boarding began, and no aerial shooting occurred after that point. Oh wait...

Tell you what - try not to embellish the actual report with your own suppositions?

How about you read the actual report instead of posting this crap?

However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How about you read the actual report instead of posting this crap?

I've read the report. It makes clear that there's no evidence to suggest that anyone was killed prior to the boarding of the ship. It also makes clear that they don't know where Furkan Dogan was shot from initially. What it definitely doesn't support is the contention that he was:

Shot in the chest from the helicopter. i.e. before any IDF had boarded. Therefore not IDF self-defense.

harryd2

alastair wrote: »

?? Is there a contradiction? Did they not board with non-lethal weapons, and use those non-lethal weapons rather than their side arms?

No they killed people with LETHAL Weapons.

alastair wrote: »

duh. You don't say?
What weapons did they use first?

Doesn't matter what they used first, ultimately they killed people with their lethal weapons.