It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kdial1
Originally posted by madhadder545
reply to post by Essan
Its very simple Isreal set up a blockade. That means you cant go through it, but they choose to do it putting Isreal in situation they probably didnt want. The boat started it bye passing the blockade. Isreal responded. They just wanted to take control of the boat or stop it. Then they start getting bashed in there heads and what would you do? the exact same thing. "fight for your life" if they just wanted to kill there would have been alot more blood
So by your logic reverse the current situation, imagine Israel was the one that had a blockade against them denying aid into their country without first going to Palestine to make sure there was no building materials or weapons.
And I will quote you
what would you do? the exact same thing. "fight for your life" if they just wanted to kill there would have been alot more blood
Guess what! Palestine is fighting for their life! They are humans just like us, they have every right to get aid and building materials after Israel leveled the strip. Take a look on Googlemaps satellite view.
I just want what everyone else wants in this world and that is Peace in the Middle east!!
I hope I see it in my lifetime, all countries governements should be making this their #1 agenda. Something has to be done with Israel and Palestine or otherwise it is just going to get worse.
-Kdial1
An Al-Jazeera reporter on one of the Turkish ships said the Israelis fired at the vessel before boarding it. The Israelis, who had declared they would not let the ships reach Gaza, said they only opened fire after being attacked by activists with sticks, knives and live fire from weapons seized from the Israeli commandos
Read more: www.thenewstribune.com...
This is in international waters, not Israeli waters, not in the 68-mile exclusion zone. We are being attacked in international waters completely illegally."
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
You cannot provide an argument without resorting to personal attacks?
Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
I know, it sucks. You probably have a horribly obese wife, 2 kids that don't listen to you who sit and play video games all day and is probably failing out of the first grade, so the only action you get to see is the keyboard in front of you where you can play armchair hero to the rest of these forum crowds who might believe your delusional ranting. I guess you got to get attention somewhere.
Was that really needed? You were doing well with out it.
I think you owe an apology. IMO.
Be the better person.
The Irish challenging Israeli aggression, because they knew who's fault it was.
NOT AP, as you insinuated.
By PATRICK COOPER, IrishCentral.com Staff Writer
Hmmm, what's this??? An ex-Mossad agent downing Israel for their actions.
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 -- 10:53 pm
Gee...what's this??? Israel wants a rejection on an independent investigation. I wonder why???
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 -- 12:02 am
Wow...Egypt lifts a blockade to the Gaza strip because of Israeli violence and aggression. Hmmm...seems like the rest of the world is going on the same information that I have. Why is no one going on the information that you have??? Could it be because YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION?
Oh...Lookey here!!! This just in. Many of Israel's allies have frozen their ties. But, I guess your information says something different. Planet earth to WHO AGAIN???
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, May 31st, 2010 -- 9:42 am
WOW...It looks like a bunch of reporters SAW exactly what happened. OH, um, where's your info again???
same as Article two you posted, and STILL not AP per your claim.
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, May 31st, 2010 -- 6:49 pm
However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people.
Then he confirms the first death, saying the individual was killed by "munitions," but not specifying whether it was a bullet or something else. Then he confirms that Israeli forces were boarding the ship.
Another of the reporters featured in the video works for the Iranian network Press TV. "We are being hit by tear gas, stun grenades, we have navy ships on either side, helicopters overhead," he said. "We are being attacked from every single side. This is in international waters, not Israeli waters, not in the 68-mile exclusion zone. We are being attacked in international waters completely illegally."
No Al Jazeera here.
and then proceeded to give us a beautiful illustration of just how that works.
Some of us do our homework. Others of us (um cough...Skellon) sits and does nothing whatsoever and bases everything that they know off of what mommy and daddy told them when they were young.
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
Well, I was waiting on Skellon to reply to this post, as it was a post directed at him, but since you saw fit to aim it at me as well, I suppose it's fair game for me too, now.
You have misrepresented nearly every one of those articles. Nearly every one. Yup, I read 'em - just to see if what you had there could 'straighten me out'. Nope.
Article one
You said:
The Irish challenging Israeli aggression, because they knew who's fault it was.
Nothing of the kind. It was a story about an Irish activist, among many other nationalities, aboard the Rachel Corrie (US flagged vessel, I believe), not any sort of Irish national response, as you implied. We all already KNEW Maire was aboard. It's about an activist response, not an Irish one.
Byline wasNOT AP, as you insinuated.
By PATRICK COOPER, IrishCentral.com Staff Writer
Article two
You said:
Hmmm, what's this??? An ex-Mossad agent downing Israel for their actions.
This article was actually pretty close to what you said it was. one man's opinion of the military actions of the day. He had some valid points, but in the end, it was still opinion, perhaps a bit more informed than most. You should check out some of his other work - it appears to be right down your alley. Some of it is posted online, in it's entirety.
Byline was:
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 -- 10:53 pm
Again, NOT AP, as you insinuated. Matter of fact, there is no attribution there at all, other than the author's name. Either the parent organization was so ashamed of that story they wouldn't allow attribution to the, or he's just freelance. Still not AP, though.
Article three
You said:
Gee...what's this??? Israel wants a rejection on an independent investigation. I wonder why???
I actually have to wonder if you read that story yourself, or just saw the headline, and thought you could spin it up. You really ought to read it, it's not too bad. That particular issue is subject of another thread at ATS, and I've already commented on it there. If you really have to wonder why, I reckon you're even less cerebral than I initially gave you credit for.
Byline on that one is:
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 -- 12:02 am
STILL not AP, as you so forcefully tried to insist in your post.
Article four
You said:
Wow...Egypt lifts a blockade to the Gaza strip because of Israeli violence and aggression. Hmmm...seems like the rest of the world is going on the same information that I have. Why is no one going on the information that you have??? Could it be because YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION?
Didn't you read that one, either? It said Egypt is TEMPORARILY opening one border crossing, in one town, for a few days, as a response. That's hardly lifting a blockade. I would have thought the Huffington post could have found something stronger to support their agenda, but I guess not. Hmmm...
Byline on that one WAS AP. Congrats.
Article five
You said:
Oh...Lookey here!!! This just in. Many of Israel's allies have frozen their ties. But, I guess your information says something different. Planet earth to WHO AGAIN???
That article states that two countries - Turkey and Greece- have cancelled planned joint military exercises. Two countries. Joint MILITARY EXERCISES. Not quite "freezing ties". The rest of the article details loud condemnation from arab countries. Is that really a surprise to you? If it is, you should get out more. Was the Turkish military exercise cancellation really a surprise? Hardly ground shaking stuff there.
Byline there was
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, May 31st, 2010 -- 9:42 am
Again, NOT AP, as you claimed.
Article six
You said:
WOW...It looks like a bunch of reporters SAW exactly what happened. OH, um, where's your info again???
Byline for that one issame as Article two you posted, and STILL not AP per your claim.
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, May 31st, 2010 -- 6:49 pm
A pertinent part of the article (which, again, I think you failed to actually read) is this:
However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people.
Then he confirms the first death, saying the individual was killed by "munitions," but not specifying whether it was a bullet or something else. Then he confirms that Israeli forces were boarding the ship.
Another of the reporters featured in the video works for the Iranian network Press TV. "We are being hit by tear gas, stun grenades, we have navy ships on either side, helicopters overhead," he said. "We are being attacked from every single side. This is in international waters, not Israeli waters, not in the 68-mile exclusion zone. We are being attacked in international waters completely illegally."
Notice that the first 'reporter' (actually a producer) is from al-Jazeera, in direct contravention to what you said in the same post, here:
No Al Jazeera here.
The second is from Iranian Press TV. Hardly 'unbiased', in either case.
If those articles are the best you can come up with, and then you have to misrepresent them too boot, it's hardly a convincing argument.
I Do have to give you credit for something, though. You also said, in the same post:
and then proceeded to give us a beautiful illustration of just how that works.
Some of us do our homework. Others of us (um cough...Skellon) sits and does nothing whatsoever and bases everything that they know off of what mommy and daddy told them when they were young.
Kudos!
The rest of the post is attempted insult, bluster, and foolish bravado (considering what you tried to back it up with), and doesn't warrant considered response.
Thanks for playing, kid! Better luck next time!
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
ummm
for those that think Israel is in the right let me ask you
How come they won't release more than a damn minute of the tape?
that's pathetic and some people defend them nonetheless?
Imagine if muslims borded an american ship and "defended" themselves, later on the international community blasts them and what they do in response is release extremely small portions of the video tape.
They also won't allow an independant investigation.
But let's believe them when they say "They had no choice"??????
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
Nonsense, eh? Surely you can come up with better than that.
Yeah, I read them, and what's more, I summarized them to prove it. I don't expect ANYONE to take my word for it. That's why I re-linked each one - so folks could go read them themselves, and THEY can determine who read them and who didn't. Matter of fact, I read them a couple of hours ago, the first time you posted them, then went out for a cup of coffee and came back. Yeah, I had plenty of time to read them and mull it over.
Frankly, you can't even keep this exchange interesting. Give me something worthy of debate, and I'll come back. Otherwise, I'm done with you and your attempted insults in lieu of reasoned debate.
I'll let the other readers puzzle over it, read your articles and both our commentaries thereon, and figure it out.
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
Relevant info that my opinions are based on has already been posted in this thread by other folks (including YOUR links - way to go in supporting my opinions, slick!), and referenced by myself. I see no need to waste space by posting them over and over again. If you couldn't have been bothered to follow up on them to begin with, you wouldn't follow up now, either, and that ain't my problem.
Just the video alone is all over the internet. If you haven't seen it already, I'm not sure how you can consider your opinion to be an informed one.
Not only am I not going to repost the links and information, I'm also not going to respond to any more of your emotional rants. Done is done, and I'm done with your hurt 'feelings'. Not sure what you don't understand about that.
Have a nice life, y'hear?
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
As expected. No sources, no proof, no argument...No case.
Its a good thing we're not in a court of law with you as a defender or a prosecutor. You would have already lost and been fired by your client, be it the state or the individual who made the unfortunate mistake of hiring you.
Thanks for allowing me to school ya.
just because the opposition attorneys stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"