Pro-Israel BBC bias on Flotilla Massacre documentary.

joebucks

from http://twitter.com/Glinner

http://www.france24.com/en/20100928-icc-can-examine-aid-flotilla-case-un-expert

The International Criminal Court could examine Israel's deadly storming of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May, a member of a UN Human Rights Council's probe into the incident said Tuesday.

Desmond de Silva, a member of the inquiry, noted that the ship Mavi Marmara's flagstate is the Comoros Islands, which are members of the court, "which gives the ICC jurisdiction because the (offensives) were committed on board the Mavi Marmara."

The probe ordered by the UN Human Rights Council into the May 31 incident said last week that there is clear evidence to back prosecution against Israel for killing and torture when its troops stormed the aid ship, leaving nine Turkish activists dead.

It also said that six of the deceased were "victims of summary executions."

deirdremf

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish. The best determination comes from the fullest amount of information. They're missing an entire perspective and associated evidence from this inquiry. It's compromised by those basic facts.

I can't agree with you there, alasdair,

If they had not been allowed to participate, or if their evidence was given and disallowed, that could constitute an undermining, but when they were invited and freely decided not to take part, the report is equally valid as it would have been if they participated.
My reading of the situation is that they knew the report would be worse for them if they allowed their soldiers or officials to be questioned, and decided to limit repercussions by keeping away.

In Irish law, if a defendant refuses to answer questions, the judge is allowed to draw conclusions from his refusal.

I think people all around the world will be drawing conclusions from Israel's decision not to participate.

deirdremf

meglome wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdremf
I suspect that you and CokaColumbo are working in tandem here, hasbara and all that, i.e. israeli propagandists.

Well Robtri is posting here for years but you just came on, seems more likely that you are being paid to do it.

I don't see the connection between two posters working together, the length of time one of them has been on boards.ie, and your suggestion that I am being paid to write here (incidentally, I'm not paid, unlike the hasbara hereabouts, some of whom probably use multiple identities. (Again, my only identity on this site is the one I'm writing here under).

humanji

There will ne no more accusations of being paid to post here, from anyone!

meglome

deirdremf wrote: »

I don't see the connection between two posters working together, the length of time one of them has been on boards.ie, and your suggestion that I am being paid to write here (incidentally, I'm not paid, unlike the hasbara hereabouts, some of whom probably use multiple identities. (Again, my only identity on this site is the one I'm writing here under).

The point I was trying to make is I've seen the post history of the people who have posted on here for a long period of time. That allows me to make a judgement on their motivations. What I don't do is assume that people who disagree with me are paid to do it. I dunno maybe I'm wrong or mistaken or misinformed or have let my biases cloud my judgement. All which are far more likely than someone being paid.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For arguments sake lets pretend that you aren't in denial for sec.

Let's pretend that the report says what you claim it does.

WHAT DOES IT CHANGE??

LIVE FIRE THAT CAUSED FATAL INJURIES vs LIVE FIRE THAT DIDN*T CAUSE FATAL INJURIES.

HOW DOES THAT EFFECT THE VALID CLAIM OF SELF DEFENSE HELD BY THE PASSENGERS?

TELL ME...

Why so quiet Alastair?

That's not like you.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so quiet Alastair?

That's not like you.

Banned.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

Banned.

eh for what?

asking a question?

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

eh for what?

asking a question?

No I'm saying the reason Alistair is not answering you is he is banned. The reason I was so short was I was on my phone and its a pain in the @rse to write on.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

No I'm saying the reason Alistair is not answering you is he is banned. The reason I was so short was I was on my phone and its a pain in the @rse to write on.

Haha. That's gas. I was a little shocked tbh.

meglome

You know it's funny that I find myself somehow in a roundabout way supporting the Israelis on this thread. Well supporting is the wrong word, as I don't actually support them. I'm often disgusted by Israelis behaviour, I think taking those ships in international waters was completely wrong and as Alistair said ill-advised. Hopefully the commander of the mission at the very least will be prosecuted. It's more I'm sick of this on-going blame the Israelis for everything stuff the goes on. It's like the boy who cried wolf fable. It's a pity really because there is so much they should answer for but it's often masked by the level of total horseshít that is flung in their direction.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

You know it's funny that I find myself somehow in a roundabout way supporting the Israelis on this thread. Well supporting is the wrong word, as I don't actually support them. I'm often disgusted by Israelis behaviour, I think taking those ships in international waters was completely wrong and as Alistair said ill-advised. Hopefully the commander of the mission at the very least will be prosecuted. It's more I'm sick of this on-going blame the Israelis for everything stuff the goes on. It's like the boy who cried wolf fable. It's a pity really because there is so much they should answer for but it's often masked by the level of total horseshít that is flung in their direction.

No offense but IMO it is your lack of knowledge/understanding that makes you think this way. A good example is in this thread actually.

You previously posted these comments:

it doesn't look like they planned to kill anyone.

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

In light of what has been established do you continue to cling to these statements?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No offense but IMO it is your lack of knowledge/understanding that makes you think this way. A good example is in this thread actually.

You previously posted these comments:

In light of what has been established do you continue to cling to these statements?

Sorry BB but I haven't seen that at all. Leaving aside that the action was illegal, it still looks like they tried to do with without killing anyone. Though that won't make it any better for the families of those killed. And you still haven't explained to me what exactly was biased about that documentary.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Sorry BB but I haven't seen that at all. Leaving aside that the action was illegal, it still looks like they tried to do with without killing anyone.

In no uncertain terms they wilfully executed and murdered innocent, unarmed civilians trapped in a boat at sea.

The UN report backs this up 100%. - "nobody was safe" from the "incredible violence" from the IDF.

The UN fact-finding committee has established that the IDF fired live ammunition from helicopters onto the top deck while the Muslims were praying.

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

Once they had the top deck secure they fired down with live ammunition onto defenseless passengers. Including the IHH photographer who was holding a camera at the time - they shot him, execution style between the eyes.

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

They shot and killed people who were trying to administer first-aid to wounded passengers

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

Many of the murdered were shot multiple times from behind (in self defense :rolleyes:)

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

Some of the murdered were shot from point blank range in the face

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

The IDF continued their assault AFTER the waving of a white flag

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

The IDF refused to help the dying passengers who's wounds were not fatal had they recieved proper attention. Thereby killing them twice as former (and then) Knesset member Haneen Zuabi aptly put it.

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

9 killed scores wounded from gunfire

How is that not trying to kill anyone??

I could go on but I think I've made my point.

meglome wrote: »

Though that won't make it any better for the families of those killed. And you still haven't explained to me what exactly was biased about that documentary.

Well for a start would you know any of the above from the BBC report? No, you would not. They never mentioned the autopsy reports which were long released at the time did they?...

I tell you what - I'm home sick from work at the moment so tomorrow might be a good opportunity to watch it again and let you know.

meglome

Okay BB... I reiterate here I think the action was wrong and illegal. Now... they attacked the ship initially with paintball guns and rubber bullets. At this point no one was seriously injured and the commandos were stopped from boarding. They also boarded all the other boats without anyone being seriously injured. The second time they came back in helicopters and during this people were shot. If you send soldiers into an assault like this and they are attacked they are trained to kill and unsurprisingly they did kill people. The Israelis are specifically trained to shoot people in the head as they get suicide bombers so unsurprising people got shot in the head.

Boarding a ship in international waters like this is illegal and it appears to me those defending the ship were in their right to do so. But again it does not look like the Israelis set out to kill anyone, at least initially. I don't think these troops needed to be Israeli for this to go horribly wrong. Once you send troops into a pitched battle people will die. The commander of this operation fukked up badly and he above all people should answer for it.

squod

Ken O'Keefe, former soldier confronted and disarmed ?three people on the boat. Without killing anyone.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Okay BB... I reiterate here I think the action was wrong and illegal.

There should be no thinking about it. It was illegal, many of the actions were illegal, not just one,

meglome wrote: »

Now... they attacked the ship initially with paintball guns and rubber bullets. At this point no one was seriously injured and the commandos were stopped from boarding.

Correct

meglome wrote: »

They also boarded all the other boats without anyone being seriously injured.

Not without human rights violations being committed though. The passengers were subjected to legally defined torture, were attacked non-lethally despite offering a purely peaceful resistance.
One account of an Irish-Australian journalist being tasered http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/aussie-photographer-kate-geraghty-tasered-during-flotilla-raid/story-e6frf7lf-1225874808220

meglome wrote: »

The second time they came back in helicopters and during this people were shot.

Your timeline is all wrong. There was no second attempt. The Zodiacs in all likelihood were a diversion to clear the top deck for boarding from the helicopters. It was a single concerted effort, the stated effort which was to include all means necessary to prevent the blockade being breached.

You didn't read the report did you?

meglome wrote: »

If you send soldiers into an assault like this and they are attacked they are trained to kill and unsurprisingly they did kill people.

What nonsense. Maybe yekahs can clear this up but I would assume soliders are trained to distinguish between combatants and non combatants as international law says they must. Between a threat and a non threat such as the IHH photographer who was filming from the lower deck and was shot from the top deck between the eyes.

And for the record the IDF weren't attacked as has been clearly established. They were the attackers. They were firing live rounds from the helicopter at civilians who were therefore 100% entitled to defend themselves.

meglome wrote: »

The Israelis are specifically trained to shoot people in the head as they get suicide bombers so unsurprising people got shot in the head.

Out and out the single most ridiculous reason I have ever seen in the 28 years of my life to justify murder of innocent people.

meglome wrote: »

Boarding a ship in international waters like this is illegal and it appears to me those defending the ship were in their right to do so. But again it does not look like the Israelis set out to kill anyone, at least initially. I don't think these troops needed to be Israeli for this to go horribly wrong. Once you send troops into a pitched battle people will die. The commander of this operation fukked up badly and he above all people should answer for it.

It's nothing to do with being Israeli, it is to do with right and wrong. It wasn't a "pitched battle" it was a massacre with innocent and unarmed people bravely fighting for their lives against elite commados sent to kill them. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this? It is extremely clear.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Out and out the single most ridiculous reason I have ever seen in the 28 years of my life to justify murder of innocent people.

I'm lost where have I sought to justify the killing of anyone?

I'll get back to you on the rest tomorrow.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I'm lost where have I sought to justify the killing of anyone?

I'll get back to you on the rest tomorrow.

9 people were killed.

You gave this albeit nonsensical excuses for their collective murders:

If you send soldiers into an assault like this and they are attacked they are trained to kill and unsurprisingly they did kill people.

The Israelis are specifically trained to shoot people in the head as they get suicide bombers so unsurprising people got shot in the head.

I really am trying to avoid as coming across as patronising but this must be about the 5th dictionary definition i have posted for you in this thread.

Definition of EXCUSE

1
a : to make apology for b : to try to remove blame from

2
: to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable <graciously excused his tardiness>

3
a : to grant exemption or release to <was excused from jury duty> b : to allow to leave <excused the class>

4
: to serve as excuse for : justify <nothing can excuse such neglect>

— ex·cus·able\ik-ˈskyü-zə-bəl\ adjective
— ex·cus·able·ness noun
— ex·cus·ably\-blē\ adverb
— ex·cus·er noun

ergo your comment was apologising for/justifying/ excusing mass-murder. Why do you think you did that? And just as importantly - how could you do such a thing without even realising it yourself?

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

9 people were killed.

You gave this albeit nonsensical excuses for their collective murders:

I really am trying to avoid as coming across as patronising but this must be about the 5th dictionary definition i have posted for you in this thread.

ergo your comment was apologising for/justifying/ excusing mass-murder. Why do you think you did that? And just as importantly - how could you do such a thing without even realising it yourself?

But I'm not excusing the Israelis, I'm trying to point out the differences with how you claim it happened and how it may have actually happened. People died, there's no doubt about that. People died in an illegal action against a ship in international waters, there's seems little doubt about that. Violence in this incident escalated from the firing of paintball guns at the ship to the people on the ship and the soldiers slugging it out on a one to one basis. Once it got to that point it was always going to go horribly wrong. The commanders of this operation should be sacked and hauled up in front of a court. However illegal this operation was it still doesn't look like the Israelis set out to kill anyone but you started by saying it was an Israeli massacre... "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". There was no massacre, there were soldiers put into an impossible position by their commanders and unsurprising people died.

Just a thought but if there was a lot less bullshít and lies directed at Jews in general more people might get stuck in on Israel.

Mahatma coat

Ok Another Analogy, me and BB are comin round to your house, you've told us to Feck off, so We decide that there may be a little Agro, is it OK for us to Ring the Doorbell with a 12Gauge Shotgun, Because WE didnt intend to escalate the situation any further?????

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ok Another Analogy, me and BB are comin round to your house, you've told us to Feck off, so We decide that there may be a little Agro, is it OK for us to Ring the Doorbell with a 12Gauge Shotgun, Because WE didnt intend to escalate the situation any further?????

You're missing his point. He never said any of it was ok.

Mahatma coat

I dunno, I think the apathetic stance of

well they Attacked the Soldiers what did they expect

is a bit of an apologist tactic.

What worries me is that Meglome is not normally an apologist, so it shows how Deeply the Hasbra Shills have planted their twisted logic into the narative

joebucks

meglome wrote: »

Just a thought but if there was a lot less bullshít and lies directed at Jews in general more people might get stuck in on Israel.

What bull**** and lies have been directed at Jews?

Do you mean on this board or in general?

squod

meglome wrote: »

Once it got to that point it was always going to go horribly wrong.

Once it got to that point they could have taken a breather and tried some other non lethal means of disabling the boat, or negotiating with it's crew. How you can rationalise the ''soldiers'' behaviour is frightening TBH.

After using non-lethal means and failing, the next logical step isn't the use of lethal force. Any rational person could tell you that.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it is, but your aren't being true to the facts.

sorry been on holidays

but still an attack is an attack and these peacefully guys attacked armed soliders....

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

sorry been on holidays

Welcome back! Hope you had a nice time.

robtri wrote: »

but still an attack is an attack and these peacefully guys attacked armed soliders....

Robtri your not getting the clear distinction between attacking and defending. The initiator is the attacker, any response by the attacked towards the attacker is deemed defense, not attack provided it is proportionate and is perfectly acceptable legally and morally.

A legal definition of defense: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

The passengers were fired on. They, as anyone else would've had two choices when fired upon - fight or flight and as a group they chose both. It was a tremendous act of courage for unarmed civilians to try to defend themselves and their party which included women, a 1-year-old baby and an 80 year old Arch-Bishop in exile don't you think? Imagine just for a minute you are Çetin Topçuoglu. He was on the ship with his wife, wouldn't you do whatever was necessary to protect your family? He was a Taekwondo champion, his legs and fists were the only actual weapons on board that ship and he wasn't even fighting! He was trying to save lives when he was murdered. From the autopsy it seems as if he was actually in the process of aiding an injured passenger when he was killed. That is what an attack is - not fighting for your life.

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.

This is his wife who has to live with his cold blooded murder which she witnessed for the reest of her life.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Welcome back! Hope you had a nice time.



Robtri your not getting the clear distinction between attacking and defending. The initiator is the attacker, any response by the attacked towards the attacker is deemed defense, not attack provided it is proportionate and is perfectly acceptable legally and morally.

but surely their attempt to break the blockade was an attack on the Israelis....

also that by pre arming themselves with homemade weapons prior to the boarding is also a position of aggreesion and not of a peaceful attempt

squod

robtri wrote: »

but surely their attempt to break the blockade was an attack on the Israelis....

They weren't going to Israel.

robtri wrote: »

also that by pre arming themselves with homemade weapons prior to the boarding is also a position of aggression and not of a peaceful attempt

Taking machine guns to a fist fight is fine with you?

joebucks

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-lists-top-10-anti-israel-groups-in-u-s-1.319155

ADL lists top 10 anti-Israel groups in U.S.
Jewish Voice for Peace included on list, drafted based on groups' ability to organize events, attract supporters, form relationships with like-minded groups.