And where did all the peace activists just happen to come from? Oh Turkey where like 99% of the population are Muslims. There's a reason France kick so many Muslims out.tbh israel wouldnt have a fortress mentality if the fucking muslims werent hellbent on their destruction hey guys hey
LOL, until this issue, Turkey was generally supportive of Israel, its common knowledge.And where did all the peace activists just happen to come from? Oh Turkey where like 99% of the population are Muslims. There's a reason France kick so many Muslims out.
in the words of da bbjAnd where did all the peace activists just happen to come from? Oh Turkey where like 99% of the population are Muslims. There's a reason France kick so many Muslims out.
i dont really think thats the case at all. when placing fault you've got to determine who was more wrong and who caused the incident more. and on both counts the blame lies further towards israel. their right to board that boat was questionable - they had other means than to board it in the first place - there was no reason to kill nineteen people.u guys get so worked up
Israel:
- shouldnt have boarded the boat.
Activists etc:
- shouldnt have attacked armed IDf members
???
both parties are at fault.
yes the bigger picture is that israel does what it wants when it wants, but if you look at this incident independently, both parties are equally at fault
killing people is a bigger evil than beating people with metal poles. i'll assign some numbers to help you understand:boarding a boat illegally is a lesser evil than bashing people with metal poles to the extent that they felt their lives were in danger and lethal force was required to protect themselves
end
of
story
nobody but israel thought that flotilla was carrying anything other than aid. all they were carrying was aid. are you seriously comparing a cocaine shipment with an aid shipment? are you that daft?boarding and searching vessels in international waters, when the cargo is headed for their ports, is not new. most countries do it.
lol oh this ship was searched in Colombia, better not search it for cocaine hey guys, off you go to port have fun, also you have some white powder on your nose mate
that is pretty awful
this doesn't help
there was no legitimate threat. and if i really wanted to press that point (and i don't, but still), the activists could be thought of as defending themselves from a known violent and oppressive force.killing people to protect their own lives
WE COME IN PEACE! IGNORE OUR HISTORY, OUR WEAPONS, THE FACT THAT WE ARE AN ANTI-TERROR HIT SQUAD, AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE DESCENDED FROM A MOTHER FUCKING HELICOPTER.the activists knew they werent about to be murdered for no reason when they were first boarded
if your boat was raided by the IDF, would you seriously think they were there for any peaceful means? Give me one, ONE, example of when the IDF has done something like that with peaceful intent.you cant suggest that the activists seriously thought they were about to be murdered for no reason
wikipedia said:Activists on two ships, the Sfendoni and the Free Mediterranean, report being subdued with violence.[71]
wikipedia said:Although the Israeli army has stated that the only incidents took place in Mavi Marmara, Spanish newspaper El País has reported that several people from the other ships were also wounded.[98] Activists from the Sfendoni and the Free Mediterranean reported that Israeli troops used tear gas, rubber bullets, and electrical shock against activists on board.[71]
that's pretty questionable dude. not only from the quotes above which show that the boarding of the other vessels was not peaceful, but also because the timeline is in question. i don't know the exact timeline but there was no indication that the people on board the mavi marmara knew exactly what happened on board other vessels, nor is there a rock hard account of which boat was boarded first.especially when the boarding of the 5 previous vessels went fine and the IDF were primarily armed with non lethal weapons
and i, and the rest of the world, am saying that is debatable. what's not debatable is that the killing of nineteen civilians was a MASSIVE over reaction, and its not the first over reaction we've seen from israel.all im saying is
you can speculate all you want about perceived israeli intentions
but they werent the ones who initiated violence
just on that point: if the IDF suspected that they might be subject to violence, and they felt the need to carry weapons on board because of that, why did they board in the first place? there were numerous other options - for one they could have waited until they hit gazan waters (although killing ANY number of people then would still be an over reaction). second, they could have just blocked the boats in and escorted them to ashdod - which, if i were on that boat, i would have expected quite frankly. third, they could have bought along non lethal weapons ONLY - the activists on board had nothing that could compete with the IDF's force. pepper spray or teargas - tasers even could have been enough IF they IDF felt they had no other option...if they had the right to board that boat in the first instance, which they did not.from what i have read several times, the idf only opened fire after one member was on the ground being attacked and they feared he would be killed. overreaction?
Zip lining into a boat full of people without telling them is asking for trouble.stop saying 19 the consensus in the (jew)media is 9
from what i have read several times, the idf only opened fire after one member was on the ground being attacked and they feared he would be killed. overreaction?
and perhaps it was an overreaction, and israel is to blame for this, but they didnt initiate the violence and arent totally to blame