WTF Israel?

anon x

New Member
goldfish.What i meant by quoting this,"The people on the boats were very, very violent toward the soldiers," followed by the :crazy: was that whatever the initial response was from those on the boat it did not merit the response by the Israelis.

The only way to get all the facts would be an independent enquiry but can't see that happening.

As for your take that the pix from Turkey are "trophy" ones. It could also be argued they were taken to merely document what was happening that morning.
 

drunken goldfish

blah blah fishcakes
goldfish.What i meant by quoting this,"The people on the boats were very, very violent toward the soldiers," followed by the :crazy: was that whatever the initial response was from those on the boat it did not merit the response by the Israelis.
The only way to get all the facts would be an independent enquiry but can't see that happening.
No offense, but as someone who (I'm assuming) has neither served in the army, nor has ever been threatened by such violence as was obviously inflicted on the soldiers, I doubt your ability to call just what the appropriate actions were. For the record, I don't know either, and I too hope there will be an independent inquiry. But as I told nogodsnomasters1985, the main point was that people often don't get the whole story, yet they are quick to form opinions. See my second post to you.
As for your take that the pix from Turkey are "trophy" ones. It could also be argued they were taken to merely document what was happening that morning.
Well, I don't know what the photographers' intent was when they took the photos, but the Turkish press published them under the headline "Tears of the Commandos". Make of that what you will.

Finally, I have to ask - are you aware of how many civilians your army (U.K., right?) has killed these past few years? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking if you've been following the incidents, the army's explanations of the circumstances, etc.?
 

anon x

New Member
Finally, I have to ask - are you aware of how many civilians your army (U.K., right?) has killed these past few years? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking if you've been following the incidents, the army's explanations of the circumstances, etc.?

I don't have the figures,no, though have followed the Deepcut incidents with interest.
Why ? :confused:

IF the point blank shootings are for real then it is still hard to justify them.

This incident quickly followed the assasination in Dubai. MORE illegal nonsense from the Israel govt.

Fingers crossed we get a full independent enquiry.
 

drunken goldfish

blah blah fishcakes
I don't have the figures,no, though have followed the Deepcut incidents with interest.
Why ? :confused:
I didn't mean if you had exact figures, I meant if you followed the incidents carefully, as you seem to follow those made by Israel. Since your answer only relates to internal army affairs and not to those related to civilians, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, I assume the answer is no. Why did I ask?

1. If you care about civilians (and I believe that you do), you should monitor your own army first, and make sure you approve of what is being done in your name.
2. If you monitor other armies' behavior but don't bother to do the same for yours, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
3. If you studied incidents in which other armies, such as your own, have hurt civilians, you would be more qualified to judge the incidents in which Israel is involved. How can you judge when you don't know the "norm"? Here's an example:
A few years ago I saw a reality program about the British SAS ("SAS: Are you Tough Enough?"). The sergeant presented the participants with a dilemma of the kind which he said the SAS sometimes faces: you're on a covert operation, and you are accidentally discovered by a 14 year old boy. If he reveals you to the enemy, you're finished. Do you kill him or not? The participants tried to find solutions, like knock him out or whatever. The sergeant said "Sorry, that only works in the movies. In real life it's too risky - the correct answer is to kill him". Did you know your army has such a policy? (Trust me when I say that I'm sure they had to ask the SAS' permission for everything that aired, so it's not just one man's opinion).

This incident quickly followed the assasination in Dubai. MORE illegal nonsense from the Israel govt.
Following the same line, do you honestly think the MI6 doesn't do this sort of thing? Also, remind me again, what is the legal basis for your army's presence in the Middle East as we speak?
 

anon x

New Member
I didn't mean if you had exact figures, I meant if you followed the incidents carefully, as you seem to follow those made by Israel. Since your answer only relates to internal army affairs and not to those related to civilians, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, I assume the answer is no...


Following the same line, do you honestly think the MI6 doesn't do this sort of thing? Also, remind me again, what is the legal basis for your army's presence in the Middle East as we speak?

Yes, i follow the Iraq/Afghan situations too.

Of course they might.

This thread though was a response to the Israeli actions in this particular action

It's a bit hard to cover ALL the world's atrocities in this thread.
 

drunken goldfish

blah blah fishcakes
Yes, i follow the Iraq/Afghan situations too.

Of course they might.

This thread though was a response to the Israeli actions in this particular action

It's a bit hard to cover ALL the world's atrocities in this thread.
Sorry to be blunt, but I put a lot of thought into these posts, and you don't seem to put much thought into reading them. So I think we'll just leave it at that. No hard feelings, eh?
 

anon x

New Member
Sorry to be blunt, but I put a lot of thought into these posts, and you don't seem to put much thought into reading them. So I think we'll just leave it at that. No hard feelings, eh?

No worries . Full marks for effort though.
:)
 

nogodsnomasters85

Not Stirred
You realize that the Turks are the one who both took and published these photos, yes? Of course each country chooses to present the material which paints it in a positive light, that's what makes photos from the other side which back up your story all the more valuable.

There's tons more footage we haven't seen, and maybe never will. There were a number of journalists on the boat, Israeli forces seized the cameras and footage and have been disinclined to disclose them. They haven't released any footage of the initial approach, which implicitly supports the statements from the survivors, that the IDF started shooting before they even got on board. Journalists who tried to cover the story were barred from speaking to passengers. This combined with Israel's long history of human rights violations doesn't paint a pretty picture. Never mind the American citizen shot in the head several times at close range, etc. It's really amazing. This is probably the only country that could arbitrarily execute an American citizen with Washington's blessing.

Even if you don't buy the Israeli version completely, the photos at least show that initial coverage of the story was distorted.

They don't show much of anything, because nine-tenths of the footage and images are inaccessible. What's interesting, is the US media didn't even question this. They only got a fraction of highly edited material and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. These aren't stupid people, either. I can only chalk it up to a combination of deliberate dishonesty, or that they're so deeply committed to the official narrative that this kind of cognitive dissonance can happen.


This was my main point - that stories in the Middle East (or in any war-torn area, I imagine) are far more complex than what is presented in the media, and unless you're willing to do the research, your opinions just can't be well founded. Sadly, most of the posters on Solo don't seem to get this.

The Socratic method is universally the best approach. Question everything, I'd say that goes double for authority figures. Now, in my country, criticism of Israel is not only almost nonexistant in the mainstream media, but it's practically a hanging offense.

Also, while I understand that expertise has value, we wouldn't want amateurs performing neurosurgery, or tinkering with nuclear reactors, obviously. However, I dislike and am skeptical of the idea that these issues are the strict purview of a specialized class. I think anyone who can understand, say, domestic violence, can understand the basics of what's happening in Gaza. There's all sorts of historical data, and details and minutiae, but I don't think the central truths are sufficiently complicated or nebulous, almost anyone couldn't understand them.

So has Israel. Also, you can't seriously be suggesting that what's written in their charter doesn't count? If they're so interested in a peaceful solution, why won't they change the charter, which repeatedly says the opposite? Isn't that, like, the first step?

Why did Hamas win the election? (Which was free and democratic, btw.)
Israel imprisoned much of the elected govt., and the US tried to instigate a military coup. (Which, incidentally, shows the level of contempt for democracy.) How can anybody be surprised? The sections you mentioned WERE removed when Hamas ran for office.They have repeatedly stated they would absolutely accept peaceful coexistence along the 1967 guidelines. Israel has constantly rebuffed every attempt. Israel and the US, are essentially the only opposition to a global consensus. However, we are the new Rome, so we can do that.


Again, very complex issue, which you're trying to turn into black and white. The invasion, which I agree was very tragic and disproportionate, was the result of 7 years of rockets on the south of Israel, from the very same places which were evacuated by Israel in an attempt for peace.

That's not an accurate characterization. If Israel had any genuine interest in peace, they could have it. The greatest threat to Israel at the moment is itself. If it keeps building settlements, nevermind killing civilians and holding thousands of prisoners without charges, etc., a two-state solution will become impossible.


I'm going to have to take your word for it (if other networks are like Fox News, which I have seen, I would agree). However, as Moz fans know, America is not the world, and I am very very concerned with the one sided image of the events in the European press. Why can't journalists just do their job properly?

They aren't all as bad as Fox, thankully, but they stick to the official narrative. As I said, they were given just a tiny, highly edited handful of material and they were like; "Case closed." Again, either they're so heavily indoctrinated, or it's deliberate deception. It's universal.

There are some people who've provided some excellent reporting and analysis. Amy Goodman has done some fantastic pieces on Democracy Now!, she's always been great, she has a long history of fantastic, no-nonsense reporting. Glen Greenwald, who writes for Salon, has done some good pieces on this subject. Also, while he isn't a journalist, Noam Chomsky has consistently provided about the best analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for years, it's also a subject that has personal significance to him, he lived in Israel for some time. Norman Finkelstein, again, while not a journalist has also consistently been impressive with his breadth of knowledge and insightful analysis, in his books, and on his website, etc.
 
Last edited:

nogodsnomasters85

Not Stirred
I didn't mean if you had exact figures, I meant if you followed the incidents carefully, as you seem to follow those made by Israel. Since your answer only relates to internal army affairs and not to those related to civilians, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, I assume the answer is no. Why did I ask?

1. If you care about civilians (and I believe that you do), you should monitor your own army first, and make sure you approve of what is being done in your name.
2. If you monitor other armies' behavior but don't bother to do the same for yours, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
3. If you studied incidents in which other armies, such as your own, have hurt civilians, you would be more qualified to judge the incidents in which Israel is involved. How can you judge when you don't know the "norm"? Here's an example:
A few years ago I saw a reality program about the British SAS ("SAS: Are you Tough Enough?"). The sergeant presented the participants with a dilemma of the kind which he said the SAS sometimes faces: you're on a covert operation, and you are accidentally discovered by a 14 year old boy. If he reveals you to the enemy, you're finished. Do you kill him or not? The participants tried to find solutions, like knock him out or whatever. The sergeant said "Sorry, that only works in the movies. In real life it's too risky - the correct answer is to kill him". Did you know your army has such a policy? (Trust me when I say that I'm sure they had to ask the SAS' permission for everything that aired, so it's not just one man's opinion).


Following the same line, do you honestly think the MI6 doesn't do this sort of thing? Also, remind me again, what is the legal basis for your army's presence in the Middle East as we speak?

I disagree. I was against the war before it even began. I don't see any hypocrisy, here. The central thesis was this recent assault by IDF forces, if there had been some big massacre, or some similar even in Iraq or Afghanistan, it would get it's own thread and we'd discuss it. There have been numerous threads on the wars in the middle east, I have personally participated in most of them. The US should be held to the same standard as any other country, however, this is considered heresy by the intellectual elite, because then one arrives at some troubling conclusions.

As for the 'norms' in warfare, I generally think wars are a bad thing, and we'd be better off not having them. For that matter, I think we should do away with nation-states. This primitive, backward notion that we're all on opposing teams, this state religion (Which is another thing we'd be better off without.) of nationalism, has nearly led to human extinction, and will likely do so again.

I think we both know that the US is in violation of international law which it repeatedly and flagrantly violates. Personally, I think a lot of the laws set up to govern international relations and human rights make a lot of sense, I think a lot of the American public probably feel the same way. Unfortunately, while we are a very free society, more so than a number of other western countries in some ways (Freedom of speech, for example.) we have a substantial democratic deficit.
 

CrookedLittleVein

Duck. Duck. Duck. Goose.
There are some people who've provided some excellent reporting and analysis. Amy Goodman has done some fantastic pieces on Democracy Now!, she's always been great, she has a long history of fantastic, no-nonsense reporting. Glen Greenwald, who writes for Salon, has done some good pieces on this subject. Also, while he isn't a journalist, Noam Chomsky has consistently provided about the best analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for years, it's also a subject that has personal significance to him, he lived in Israel for some time. Norman Finkelstein, again, while not a journalist has also consistently been impressive with his breadth of knowledge and insightful analysis, in his books, and on his website, etc.

I'd also recommend Tanya Reinhart's 'Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948'. It's a little out of date (I think it was published around 2002), but Reinhart (an Israeli scholar) is thorough and insightful.

On a different note: why is this thread in The Pigsty? I'm assuming it was originally posted here, but shouldn't it be moved to Off-Topic? I mean, there's nothing offensive about it. Or am I being insensitive?
 
Top Bottom