Eugene's retro flotilla attack defense

[chenGOD]

Ah so the UN only serves its purpose when it finds for you, nicely done.

 

Please note the Palmer report said

-"that Israel’s killing of the nine passengers could not be justified."

-and "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable."

-Additionally "no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons". It further noted that "at least one of those killed, Furkan Dogan, was shot at extremely close range. Mr. Dogan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect."

 

 

The palmer report itself said it was “not asked to make determinations of the legal issues,” “not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events.” So really their decision that it is legal is irrelevant.

 

"i did go through all of it when it was originally published and it's full of methodological holes, one of the most noticeable is coming up with a report full of condemnation and almost accusations of murder without seriously considering the israeli side."

Much like the Palmer report as Finkelstein points out.

"Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the POI observes. “Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel....Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries.”3 Strangely, the POI devotes not a single syllable to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Since 2001, Israeli assaults have killed some four thousand five hundred Gazans, overwhelmingly civilians"

 

Of course you'll claim that Finkelstein is much like Chomsky, a self-hating anti-Zionist Jew. I guess this group of lawyers must also be a group of anti-Zionists.

 

Since every point that people have brought up you dismiss as "irrelevant", there's really not much point in trying to have a debate with you.

[eugene]

Ah so the UN only serves its purpose when it finds for you, nicely done.

 

Please note the Palmer report said

-"that Israel’s killing of the nine passengers could not be justified."

-and "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable."

-Additionally "no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons". It further noted that "at least one of those killed, Furkan Dogan, was shot at extremely close range. Mr. Dogan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect."

 

 

The palmer report itself said it was “not asked to make determinations of the legal issues,” “not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events.” So really their decision that it is legal is irrelevant.

 

"i did go through all of it when it was originally published and it's full of methodological holes, one of the most noticeable is coming up with a report full of condemnation and almost accusations of murder without seriously considering the israeli side."

Much like the Palmer report as Finkelstein points out.

"Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the POI observes. “Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel....Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries.”3 Strangely, the POI devotes not a single syllable to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Since 2001, Israeli assaults have killed some four thousand five hundred Gazans, overwhelmingly civilians"

 

Of course you'll claim that Finkelstein is much like Chomsky, a self-hating anti-Zionist Jew. I guess this group of lawyers must also be a group of anti-Zionists.

 

Since every point that people have brought up you dismiss as "irrelevant", there's really not much point in trying to have a debate with you.

 

do you actually notice yourself that you don't address any of the points i make ?

lets try to make it clearer once again:

1. how could the unhrc or the palmer mission objectively reenact the circumstances of the 9 deaths without testimonies by the IDF soldiers ? also how could they verify the validity of their interviewees ? the only thing in the unhrc report about this is that "they did their best"

2. there were numerous warnings, there is also proof that the IHH were gearing up for the attack on the soldiers i can provide.

3. Furkan Dogan - try asking yourself, how was it determined ? does the turkish forensic has an interest in being objective about this incident ?

4. palmer decision on legality of the blockade - i think it's extremely relevant, the question is, is their conclusion binding ? the press did pick up on that after all. yet again, if the un determines that the blockade is legal then the interception is legal, so how could this finding be irrelevant exactly ?

5. finkelstein - the palmer report was looking specifically into the question of legality of israeli blockade, that's why it is reasonable to focus on the attacks on israel. it's was not supposed to address the whole conflict to resolve this issue.

6. israeli lawyers and finkelstein - i didn't ignore your quoting of finkelstein after all, and yes, there are different opinions about the incident inside israel as well.

7. i didn't dismiss every point, don't make things up.

[eugene]

why? he just made every point i'd make. also lol how about YOU post something tangible? nothing you've posted so far is a legitimate argument at all. alcofribas summed that up quite well.

alcofribas asked what the soldiers were defending themselves against, he determined that the victims were innocent civilians and that the use of force was inappropriate.

i provided a video that answers directly to his questions, how is that intangible ?

[Guest disparaissant]

its intangible because you seem to assume that people whose ships are being illegally and forcefully boarded by armed soldiers shouldn't defend themselves.

[Guest disparaissant]

oh but right i forgot it wasnt illegal because they said they were going to run an illegal blockade that you say isnt illegal because you said so

 

you are not making any credible arguments whatsoever, i dont understand how you can think you are. it would be one thing if you said FUCK YOU GUYS MY COUNTRY RULES AND I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LOGIC WE ARE DOIGN THE RIGHT THING, i could at least respect that on some level. but pretending that you have a defensible position is kind of ludicrous, almost as ludicrous as your attempts to defend it.

[eugene]

its intangible because you seem to assume that people whose ships are being illegally and forcefully boarded by armed soldiers shouldn't defend themselves.

but the IHH knew the circumstances very well, and they knew very well in advance that they are going to be boarded and stopped, it wasn't the first time a ship to gaza was boarded as far as i remember, but it was the only one that ended in deaths. you can't consider that lynching attempt you can seen on video as a legitimate self-defense against boarding.

 

oh but right i forgot it wasnt illegal because they said they were going to run an illegal blockade that you say isnt illegal because you said so

 

you are not making any credible arguments whatsoever, i dont understand how you can think you are. it would be one thing if you said FUCK YOU GUYS MY COUNTRY RULES AND I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LOGIC WE ARE DOIGN THE RIGHT THING, i could at least respect that on some level. but pretending that you have a defensible position is kind of ludicrous, almost as ludicrous as your attempts to defend it.

it's not me who said it though, it was the palmer mission.

you're just making a fool of yourself, it's cool by me if you ask the mod to delete the message and this reply though.

[Dan C]

I'm illegally boarding this thread to say that if Israel were a person you wouldn't trust him to look after your sandwich while you went for a piss.

[Guest disparaissant]

i would consider anything someone does to protect their own life from heavily armed soldiers illegally boarding their ship to be a legitimate self defense.

those soldiers should not have been on that ship.

it was an act of piracy in international waters.

once again, your defence is "well they knew my government was going to act illegally, so they should have let them!"

that is NOT a coherent defence. it's blaming the victims and painting them as perpetrators.

[candlestickmaker]

i seriously doubt eugene likes any kind of idm

[eugene]

i would consider anything someone does to protect their own life from heavily armed soldiers illegally boarding their ship to be a legitimate self defense.

those soldiers should not have been on that ship.

it was an act of piracy in international waters.

once again, your defence is "well they knew my government was going to act illegally, so they should have let them!"

that is NOT a coherent defence. it's blaming the victims and painting them as perpetrators.

their fucking life was not in danger had they not tried to kill the soldiers ! can't you get that? do you not see the difference between marmara and any other ships IDF boarded ? they were warned way in advance, even before they left turkey, that they will be intercepted if they try to breach the blockade.

 

the un says the blockade is legal, you say it's not, alright. i think that thread can live with this conflict.

[luke viia]

Just passed Dan on his illegal board outta here and thought I'd say I'm clueless about this subject but seem to have found a relevant graph.

 

 

[Guest disparaissant]

ahahaha

their lives were not in any danger, they were just being held at gunpoint by armed thugs

gotcha

its like saying that when someone mugs you, your life isn't actually in any danger, you just have to hand over your wallet

okay man

[eugene]

ahahaha

their lives were not in any danger, they were just being held at gunpoint by armed thugs

gotcha

its like saying that when someone mugs you, your life isn't actually in any danger, you just have to hand over your wallet

okay man

at what point do you see the idf pointing a real gun on the activists ? the first thing that happens in the incident is IHH trying to kill the soldiers, the idf boarded the ship with paintball guns you can even see this on the video, the IHH knew exactly what the goal of the boarding was. if you can't grasp that there's no point in arguing with you.

[Guest disparaissant]

oh so now they were there for a friendly game of paintball, not acts of piracy in international waters?

[GORDO]

So summing up:

 

Some dudes on a boat went on a suicide mission. Israel soldiers have no right to board them anyway.

 

One side is stupid, the other is a dick.

[essines]

Eugene, you are unbelievable. You make other invalid points look more valid by saying a lot of the things you say.

[chenGOD]

Ah so the UN only serves its purpose when it finds for you, nicely done.

 

Please note the Palmer report said

-"that Israel’s killing of the nine passengers could not be justified."

-and "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable."

-Additionally "no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons". It further noted that "at least one of those killed, Furkan Dogan, was shot at extremely close range. Mr. Dogan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect."

 

 

The palmer report itself said it was “not asked to make determinations of the legal issues,” “not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events.” So really their decision that it is legal is irrelevant.

 

"i did go through all of it when it was originally published and it's full of methodological holes, one of the most noticeable is coming up with a report full of condemnation and almost accusations of murder without seriously considering the israeli side."

Much like the Palmer report as Finkelstein points out.

"Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the POI observes. “Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel....Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries.”3 Strangely, the POI devotes not a single syllable to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Since 2001, Israeli assaults have killed some four thousand five hundred Gazans, overwhelmingly civilians"

 

Of course you'll claim that Finkelstein is much like Chomsky, a self-hating anti-Zionist Jew. I guess this group of lawyers must also be a group of anti-Zionists.

 

Since every point that people have brought up you dismiss as "irrelevant", there's really not much point in trying to have a debate with you.

 

do you actually notice yourself that you don't address any of the points i make ?

lets try to make it clearer once again:

1. how could the unhrc or the palmer mission objectively reenact the circumstances of the 9 deaths without testimonies by the IDF soldiers ? also how could they verify the validity of their interviewees ? the only thing in the unhrc report about this is that "they did their best"

2. there were numerous warnings, there is also proof that the IHH were gearing up for the attack on the soldiers i can provide.

3. Furkan Dogan - try asking yourself, how was it determined ? does the turkish forensic has an interest in being objective about this incident ?

4. palmer decision on legality of the blockade - i think it's extremely relevant, the question is, is their conclusion binding ? the press did pick up on that after all. yet again, if the un determines that the blockade is legal then the interception is legal, so how could this finding be irrelevant exactly ?

5. finkelstein - the palmer report was looking specifically into the question of legality of israeli blockade, that's why it is reasonable to focus on the attacks on israel. it's was not supposed to address the whole conflict to resolve this issue.

6. israeli lawyers and finkelstein - i didn't ignore your quoting of finkelstein after all, and yes, there are different opinions about the incident inside israel as well.

7. i didn't dismiss every point, don't make things up.

 

1. Then why do you give any credence to the Palmer report to begin with?

2. Show your proof

3. If they had no interest in being objective, they would have trumped up all of the deaths.

4. So now the Palmer report is relevant? I wish you would stop moving the goal posts all over the place. They said themselves they had no mandate to determine the legality of the blockade.

5. Finelstein can speak for himself far better than I can. if it wasn't supposed to address the whole conflict, why bring up that point in the first place, since it was not related to the Gaza flotilla raid.

6. All you did was ask the rhetorical question of who brought up Finkelstein. I'm glad that you're allowing others inside Israel to have their own opinion.

7. Since the Gaza flotilla incident is but one part of a much bigger picture, the disservice you do to others (such as Smetty and his question about international waters) by declaring them irrelevant is a huge disservice. If you take the position of the Palmer report and say that the raid (which happened in international waters) is legal, then you must address the issue of international vs. territorial waters. Yet at almost every turn, if someone presents findings which disagree with your preconceived notions of what must be right, you dismiss the issue as irrelevant.

 

It is difficult to admit that your nation has committed wrongdoings. There is ample evidence of that from around the world. Since you are a student of sociology, I urge you to look at how your reality has been constructed and what is considered normative within Israel.

[eugene]

Ah so the UN only serves its purpose when it finds for you, nicely done.

 

Please note the Palmer report said

-"that Israel’s killing of the nine passengers could not be justified."

-and "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable."

-Additionally "no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons". It further noted that "at least one of those killed, Furkan Dogan, was shot at extremely close range. Mr. Dogan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect."

 

 

The palmer report itself said it was “not asked to make determinations of the legal issues,” “not asked to determine the legality or otherwise of the events.” So really their decision that it is legal is irrelevant.

 

"i did go through all of it when it was originally published and it's full of methodological holes, one of the most noticeable is coming up with a report full of condemnation and almost accusations of murder without seriously considering the israeli side."

Much like the Palmer report as Finkelstein points out.

"Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the POI observes. “Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel....Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries.”3 Strangely, the POI devotes not a single syllable to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Since 2001, Israeli assaults have killed some four thousand five hundred Gazans, overwhelmingly civilians"

 

Of course you'll claim that Finkelstein is much like Chomsky, a self-hating anti-Zionist Jew. I guess this group of lawyers must also be a group of anti-Zionists.

 

Since every point that people have brought up you dismiss as "irrelevant", there's really not much point in trying to have a debate with you.

 

do you actually notice yourself that you don't address any of the points i make ?

lets try to make it clearer once again:

1. how could the unhrc or the palmer mission objectively reenact the circumstances of the 9 deaths without testimonies by the IDF soldiers ? also how could they verify the validity of their interviewees ? the only thing in the unhrc report about this is that "they did their best"

2. there were numerous warnings, there is also proof that the IHH were gearing up for the attack on the soldiers i can provide.

3. Furkan Dogan - try asking yourself, how was it determined ? does the turkish forensic has an interest in being objective about this incident ?

4. palmer decision on legality of the blockade - i think it's extremely relevant, the question is, is their conclusion binding ? the press did pick up on that after all. yet again, if the un determines that the blockade is legal then the interception is legal, so how could this finding be irrelevant exactly ?

5. finkelstein - the palmer report was looking specifically into the question of legality of israeli blockade, that's why it is reasonable to focus on the attacks on israel. it's was not supposed to address the whole conflict to resolve this issue.

6. israeli lawyers and finkelstein - i didn't ignore your quoting of finkelstein after all, and yes, there are different opinions about the incident inside israel as well.

7. i didn't dismiss every point, don't make things up.

 

1. Then why do you give any credence to the Palmer report to begin with?

2. Show your proof

3. If they had no interest in being objective, they would have trumped up all of the deaths.

4. So now the Palmer report is relevant? I wish you would stop moving the goal posts all over the place. They said themselves they had no mandate to determine the legality of the blockade.

5. Finelstein can speak for himself far better than I can. if it wasn't supposed to address the whole conflict, why bring up that point in the first place, since it was not related to the Gaza flotilla raid.

6. All you did was ask the rhetorical question of who brought up Finkelstein. I'm glad that you're allowing others inside Israel to have their own opinion.

7. Since the Gaza flotilla incident is but one part of a much bigger picture, the disservice you do to others (such as Smetty and his question about international waters) by declaring them irrelevant is a huge disservice. If you take the position of the Palmer report and say that the raid (which happened in international waters) is legal, then you must address the issue of international vs. territorial waters. Yet at almost every turn, if someone presents findings which disagree with your preconceived notions of what must be right, you dismiss the issue as irrelevant.

 

It is difficult to admit that your nation has committed wrongdoings. There is ample evidence of that from around the world. Since you are a student of sociology, I urge you to look at how your reality has been constructed and what is considered normative within Israel.

1. i give it limited credence because it addressed the legality of blockade issue, their methodology toward the incident on the deck is the same as unhrc.

2.

3. maybe they did, they are the only body whose forensic report is considered.

4. it is relevant because the issue of the blockade is relevant, what's so hard to understand ? it's one of their issue they are covering methodically, ok they had no mandate but the determined it anyway, does at least cast doubt on the claims of illegality of israeli blockade ?

5. because this point is directly relevant to the blockade question.

7. it is irrelevant because both sides thought they knew of the other sides' intention (although israel miscalculated), the main issue is the 9 deaths, not the legality of the raid.

 

it seems that is also difficult to assume that the unhrc and palmer have serious methodological failings and cast a doubt on own preconceived notions many of you have been displaying.

[eugene]

to make the last point clearer,

i can roll with you on the question of legality of blockade and show you that the illegality is disputed, but the point was that the positions were clear to begin with, the idf was working from the pov that the blockade is legal, for the flotilla activists it was illegal, the boarding was imminent. there was absolutely no precedent where idf soldiers attempted to kill anyone or anything close to it on similar raids previously, so the claim that the activists were defending their lives against the boarding is ridiculous.

though it was a mistake of the idf to assume that the activists on marmara would resist the boarding passively and not try to kill them.

 

i think watmm gave a good demonstration of how reality is constructed. unhrc report is fed to the press>everyone swallows it>israel is a pirate and a murderer, case closed. the problem in those kinds of arguments is that i simply have much more knowledge of the situation and the context, so it takes a couple of pages to just reach the understanding on simple facts.

[chenGOD]

 

7. it is irrelevant because both sides thought they knew of the other sides' intention (although israel miscalculated), the main issue is the 9 deaths, not the legality of the raid.

 

 

 

The main issue is the nine deaths - the Palmer report which you so lovingly quote says that those are unacceptable. So it's not just the unhrc.

You haven't shown any deeper understanding on the issue here eugene - you keep going back to the same talking points as the Israeli government. You use one report when it suits your needs, and then dismiss it as methodologically unsound in the next breath.

[eugene]

in both of the reports only the activists that were onboard are interviewed as to the circumstances that led to the deaths, that's why they are both unacceptable in this regard.

palmer report, unlike the unhrc, questions the illegality of the blockade, which concerns some you, although imo it's not actually important.

 

is there any contradiction here ?

[chenGOD]

And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why.

So if you think the issue of legality is not so important, then the Palmer report really doesn't back up what you say at all.

[eugene]

And why were they only allowed to interview activists? Because the Israeli government refused to allow them to interview IDF forces....oops, wonder why.

i think you're intelligent enough to consider various reasons besides " CUZ THE MURDERD THE INNOCNET ACTIVISTSS !!1", in any case it makes the report inconclusive.

 

So if you think the issue of legality is not so important, then the Palmer report really doesn't back up what you say at all.

there are some things i presented that don't need the backing of the palmer report, for example the extreme violence of the IHH activists, previous engagements of idf with the ships and their conduct onboard, the intention of the activist to create a provocation and more.

[essines]

i would consider anything someone does to protect their own life from heavily armed soldiers illegally boarding their ship to be a legitimate self defense.

those soldiers should not have been on that ship.

it was an act of piracy in international waters.

once again, your defence is "well they knew my government was going to act illegally, so they should have let them!"

that is NOT a coherent defence. it's blaming the victims and painting them as perpetrators.

their fucking life was not in danger had they not tried to kill the soldiers ! can't you get that? do you not see the difference between marmara and any other ships IDF boarded ? they were warned way in advance, even before they left turkey, that they will be intercepted if they try to breach the blockade.

 

the un says the blockade is legal, you say it's not, alright. i think that thread can live with this conflict.

 

FACEPALM

[eugene]

EXCELLENT ARGUMENT