Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/1/10 01:49 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote: It's obvious what this was. A deliberate provocation of Israel. The peoplein charge of that boat knew full well what the implications of disregarding orders from Israel would be and knew that the international outcry and publicity would be well worth it.

Sadly, some very naive people got caught up in it. I might disagree with the people who were on that ship but they did believe that what they were doing is right, much as I believe Israel's reaction to the situation was right.

This issue will never be resolved. The arguments will go back and forth along with the bullets and explosives. It's a sad fact of life.

If that so, why didn't they do it in a smart way? What they had to hide from Egypt/Israel if it is only aid? Why they had so many sharp items? And why pedo-bear is walking down the street?

And because of that reason Israel sent their soldiers with paintball guns, in order to you stop taking chill pills and worry about those guys who were hiding items which are not suppose to be in Gaza.
Some commanders in the army disagree that the soldiers had to go with the paintball guns, they think that the solders were supposed to be sent with real weapons, and with bigger ammount.

I should add the the previews aid boats were sent too, and guess what happened to them? Yes, they aided Gaza after Israel checked the aid and let them pass.

At 6/1/10 01:57 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

If that so, why didn't they do it in a smart way?

What they did was very smart. They got Israel to attack them. That's all they wanted.

:What they had to hide from Egypt/Israel if it is only aid?

The aid (or the lack of it) isn't the issue. It wouldn't matter to the people on the boat if they were carrying 5000 kilos of cheese, or a thousand XBoxes. It's the fact that they DELIBERATELY chose to disregard Israel's commands to provoke them into attacking them. Think of it as RL trolling.

At 6/1/10 02:02 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:57 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

If that so, why didn't they do it in a smart way?

What they did was very smart. They got Israel to attack them. That's all they wanted.

What they had to hide from Egypt/Israel if it is only aid?

The aid (or the lack of it) isn't the issue. It wouldn't matter to the people on the boat if they were carrying 5000 kilos of cheese, or a thousand XBoxes. It's the fact that they DELIBERATELY chose to disregard Israel's commands to provoke them into attacking them. Think of it as RL trolling.

You are already getting to the reason, but first you need to explain why you think so or what can make sense to your words. However, if you will tell that to some guy who is reading only one source of information and without knowing the past, he won't believe to you.

Israel doesn't deserve to exist.They should have stayed in Euope after World War 2.Hitler was crazy indeed,unfortunately he came into power and instilled his personal ideology in Germany.But should we give the people in Darfur who are being persecuted their own land?What about all the other people throughout history who have had it hard.Just because a religious book says they are the "chosen people" they get a free pass?To me it shouldn't work that way.

Give me a break.

At 6/1/10 03:08 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Israel doesn't deserve to exist.They should have stayed in Euope after World War 2.Hitler was crazy indeed,unfortunately he came into power and instilled his personal ideology in Germany.But should we give the people in Darfur who are being persecuted their own land?What about all the other people throughout history who have had it hard.Just because a religious book says they are the "chosen people" they get a free pass?To me it shouldn't work that way.

Give me a break.

We won't give you a break, go back to the kitchen argh I mean school and study the rights. Jews have the right to have the country is one of the reasons to have a country. Other reason is historical reason and another one are premises.

The reason is not only based on religious book and historical book, it is much more then that. Also the religious Jews didn't accepted the Zionist idea at start according to the bible it self. (however, some actually became Zionists. There are different groups of Zionist, but all are connected to the coming back to the land and take control on the desert [Having bananas in the middle of the desert])

1.) As to it being in international waters, this isn't relevant. These ships left their port with much fanfare about their intentions, the sought to violate Israeli Sovereignty by running the blockade. Israel knew this and pleaded with them to change their heading toward Ashdod, but they refused. In that situation Israel doesn't have to sit around and wait for them on their terms. They knew they intentions and their decision to stop the ships was probably made on tactical grounds. You don't have to wait for criminal to commit the crime before arresting him.

2.) As to who shot first, all any of us have is speculation, but here's what I find telling: Of the six ships, only one, it seems had any violence taking place, the Mavi Marmara. If Israel instigated the violence, why on only one ship? The simpler explanation is that Israel intended there to be no violence, and on 5 of the six ships, they were right. But on the Mavi Marmara, a ship owned by an organization that has been alleged to support terrorists the IHH, and had radical muslims on board, including one who has tried to incite violence against Jews, Ra'ad Salah, they reacted to being boarded violently with prepared knives and metal clubs, and threw soldiers overboard.

At 6/1/10 01:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:
It has right to bomb Gaza, as Gaza bombs Israel.

My neighbor ran over my cat so I killed his wife.

At 6/1/10 03:21 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:
It has right to bomb Gaza, as Gaza bombs Israel.

My neighbor ran over my cat so I killed his wife.

Bad example, also Israel blockade Gaza and destroys any rocket launchers devices that they have. Not sending entire army and rockets into Gaza.

If Israel would like to take control over Gaza again, they would do it in less then 2 days.

At 6/1/10 03:08 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Israel doesn't deserve to exist.They should have stayed in Euope after World War 2.Hitler was crazy indeed,unfortunately he came into power and instilled his personal ideology in Germany.But should we give the people in Darfur who are being persecuted their own land?What about all the other people throughout history who have had it hard.Just because a religious book says they are the "chosen people" they get a free pass?To me it shouldn't work that way.

Give me a break.

No country has more of a right to exist beyond the force the citizens that support it grant it. In other words, I do no believe there is any way at all to determine whether a country actually should or does exist beyond its ability to enforce its own laws and stability. Israel's existence is beyond the stage of inception and well into the reality of maintenance. When a people are strong enough to claim a land for their own it is theirs.

Take the history of Britain. If you think that time period was without turmoil and means that the establishment of Britain isn't rightful (and the U.S. and every other country built on the ashes of others), then you might have a point.

The simple fact is land can't be owned. States can symbolically claim land, but they must enforce it with force. Therefor, if you are going to make a logical argument about the relationship of politics to people in a region, and can't be predicated entirely in the history. If you want to make an argument, feel free to appeal to statements about culture, economy, integration, etc. Those arguments would have more weight than saying "People have to stay in one place (lol, they never do) and countries should be left alone. durrr"

The people should be left to fight it out until they can come to a satisfactory solution. And if you disagree strongly enough you can go join the fight, but in all likelihood, you probably don't care one iota more than it takes to post a couple of meaningless words online.

At 6/1/10 03:21 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:
It has right to bomb Gaza, as Gaza bombs Israel.

My neighbor ran over my cat so I killed his wife.

More like my neighbor denies my right to exist and lobs grenades at my house in the hope he'll kill my whole family but he only killed my son, So I take the neccessary measures to ensure he doesn't get anymore grenades.

At 6/1/10 01:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:43 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:39 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Israel has no right to blockade anything.

Gaza has no right to shoot rockets at Israel, send terrorist to Israel that will blow them selfs up, brain washing their kids.

I guess that what gave the right to Israel blockade Gaza, Europe agreed.

Israel has no right to bomb Gaza, brainwash their own kids or use chemical weapons.

It has right to bomb Gaza, as Gaza bombs Israel. Would you let some other poo country bomb your country?
And if you claim that Israel started first, then tell me why Israel gave Gaza to Arabs in the first place?

So because a terrorist minority does it means that its fine to bomb the majority?

At 6/1/10 01:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote: Israel doesn't brain wash their kids. Evidence: Me, in the internet, talking to you, without banned website to ban the truth from me, learning about how to protect democracy and I learn about my and other's rights + No some brain washing actions in order to brain wash me.

You should visit Israel before claiming something so damn retarded.

Sorry, most Israeli's I meet in political discussions are Islamaphobes, totalitarian, racist and fascist which gave me the impression that the media brainwashes the people. I swear, one in particular would remind anyone of Hitler and the Nazi's.

At 6/1/10 03:53 PM, Warforger wrote:

So because a terrorist minority does it means that its fine to bomb the majority?

What minority? Hamas, which we in the west designate a terrorist organization, won an election in Gaza.

Also Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks

At 6/1/10 01:11 PM, satanbrain wrote: and weapons. lots of weapons.

[citation needed]

At 6/1/10 03:33 PM, therealsylvos wrote: More like my neighbor denies my right to exist and lobs grenades at my house in the hope he'll kill my whole family but he only killed my son, So I take the neccessary measures to ensure he doesn't get anymore grenades.

Yes, and the body count and infrastrcuture damage speaks for itself. For every dead Israeli... oh, ten dead Palestinians. Or, "Arab scum" or what you Israeli's call them again? But most of them were kids, so they only count as 2/3 or what?

This thread is becoming meaningless as there are too many people arguing about too many topics, some of them totally irrelevant, Some of them with no factual base (yeah, some of the Israelis here too)
The main questions of course is WHO IS TO BLAME IN WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MAVY MARMARA? and HOW COULD IT HAVE BEEN RESOLVED DIFFERENTLY?

But in order to answer those questions there are so many little arguments to be made, that it is impossible to get to a conclusion while speaking with so many people at the same time.

I invite everyone who really want to talk, everyone who really want to hear our side and not just prove us wrong, to mail me at shayelk@gmail.com. I promise I will listen to what you have to say. I'm not just trying to prove you wrong, and maybe I will be proved wrong myself, but I do want a real discussion which is impossible to have here.

whether I'm right or not- I promise there is a lot you don't know about this situation, and I guess there is a lot I don't know. so please come and talk

At 6/1/10 04:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:11 PM, satanbrain wrote: and weapons. lots of weapons.

[citation needed]

At 6/1/10 03:33 PM, therealsylvos wrote: More like my neighbor denies my right to exist and lobs grenades at my house in the hope he'll kill my whole family but he only killed my son, So I take the neccessary measures to ensure he doesn't get anymore grenades.

Yes, and the body count and infrastrcuture damage speaks for itself. For every dead Israeli... oh, ten dead Palestinians. Or, "Arab scum" or what you Israeli's call them again? But most of them were kids, so they only count as 2/3 or what?

For 1 Israeli soldier 300 terrorists, even for 1 Israeli dead soldier 100 terrorists. (The dead body example happened before)

Israel tries to not hit civilians, sadly it is impossible since terrorists are shooting their rockets from hospitals and schools. Israel tries to avoid hitting civilian.

At 6/1/10 04:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote: For 1 Israeli soldier 300 terrorists, even for 1 Israeli dead soldier 100 terrorists. (The dead body example happened before)
Israel tries to avoid hitting civilian.

Interesting freudian slip, there.

Also, I'm pretty sure you mean 1:10/1:30 or so, not 1:100/1:300, the latter would be genoside.

And dead civillians are dead civillians. Their families don't care who Isreal was aiming for, they see a dead family member. And the circle of hate continues. There's no easy solution to the conflict, obviously. But IDF is not a scalpel, it's a blunt object.

Also, I'd like to refresh people's memory of this lovely old gaffe.

At 6/1/10 03:32 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 6/1/10 03:08 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Israel doesn't deserve to exist.They should have stayed in Euope after World War 2.Hitler was crazy indeed,unfortunately he came into power and instilled his personal ideology in Germany.But should we give the people in Darfur who are being persecuted their own land?What about all the other people throughout history who have had it hard.Just because a religious book says they are the "chosen people" they get a free pass?To me it shouldn't work that way.

Give me a break.

No country has more of a right to exist beyond the force the citizens that support it grant it. In other words, I do no believe there is any way at all to determine whether a country actually should or does exist beyond its ability to enforce its own laws and stability. Israel's existence is beyond the stage of inception and well into the reality of maintenance. When a people are strong enough to claim a land for their own it is theirs.

No problem.I agree,survival of the fittest right?

Take the history of Britain. If you think that time period was without turmoil and means that the establishment of Britain isn't rightful (and the U.S. and every other country built on the ashes of others), then you might have a point.

Ok.

The simple fact is land can't be owned. States can symbolically claim land, but they must enforce it with force. Therefor, if you are going to make a logical argument about the relationship of politics to people in a region, and can't be predicated entirely in the history. If you want to make an argument, feel free to appeal to statements about culture, economy, integration, etc. Those arguments would have more weight than saying "People have to stay in one place (lol, they never do) and countries should be left alone. durrr"

However the situation of the plight of the Jews and their gaining of land post WW2 in no way resembles various other peoples who engaged in outright warfare against the indigenous people.Take for example the Latin peoples who forced the indigenous Etruscans out of Italy.They used fighting to kick them out.

The Jews on the other hand relied on the Worldwide community post WW2 to have sympathy for them.My point is the Jews gained land through sympathy,and essentialy buying out Palestine.Armed conflict did escalate between the Jews and its Arab neighbors but only after Israels establishment,but it was under the pretext of defense.They alreay had just enough of worldwide permission to start migrating there.

Think about it.If the Jews had gone right to armed conflcit with the people who lived in what is now Israel before it had been established,the international community wouldn't have stood for it.So they used the prior greivances inflcited upon themselves by the Nazis to buy empathy.

Israel was born from a charity case.

The people should be left to fight it out until they can come to a satisfactory solution. And if you disagree strongly enough you can go join the fight, but in all likelihood, you probably don't care one iota more than it takes to post a couple of meaningless words online.

I think with the way things are going for Israel,they are facing a downward slope and world condemnation will only increase.

At 6/1/10 04:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

At 6/1/10 04:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Yes, and the body count and infrastrcuture damage speaks for itself. For every dead Israeli... oh, ten dead Palestinians. Or, "Arab scum" or what you Israeli's call them again? But most of them were kids, so they only count as 2/3 or what?

For 1 Israeli soldier 300 terrorists, even for 1 Israeli dead soldier 100 terrorists. (The dead body example happened before)

Israel tries to not hit civilians, sadly it is impossible since terrorists are shooting their rockets from hospitals and schools. Israel tries to avoid hitting civilian.

Maybe instead of bombing them you could you know, attack them with special forces? I don't get why you would need missiles and bombs fighting terrorists.

Don't you love it when everyone jumps to conclusions and pretends they are experts at shit they know nothing about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_
east/10208027.stm

Some points of interest:

Speaking as he arrived back in Berlin wrapped in a blue blanket, Mr Paech, a member of a German opposition party, said Israel's operation "was not an act of self-defence".

"Personally I saw two-and-a-half wooden batons that were used... There was really nothing else. We never saw any knives.

________________________________________
___

Activist Bayram Kalyon, arriving back in Istanbul, had also been a passenger on the Mavi Marmara.

"The captain... told us 'They are firing randomly, they are breaking the windows and entering inside. So you should get out of here as soon as possible'. That was our last conversation with him."

________________________________________
___

Meanwhile, in Nazareth, Israeli Arab MP Haneen Zuabi - who was on the flotilla - told a press conference thatIsraeli forces began firing while still in the helicopters hovering over the ships.

________________________________________
___

This is ridiculous. There needs to be an investigation into this, now. An impartial one, AKA one not conducted by Israel.

At 6/1/10 08:13 PM, Musician wrote: This is ridiculous. There needs to be an investigation into this, now. An impartial one, AKA one not conducted by Israel.

something makes me think many will have issues with who should be considered "impartial".

At 6/1/10 08:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote: something makes me think many will have issues with who should be considered "impartial".

No doubt, but we don't allow criminals to head the investigations of their own crimes, why in gods name would we allow Israel to head the investigation of this incident.? I propose an open investigation from multiple 3rd party sources, completely independent of each other. That's the closest I think we can come to impartial.

That being said LEGALLY, it should be turkey's call, since the incident occurred in international waters on a ship bearing Turkey's flag. But it still remains to be seen whether or not the Israeli's will return the flotillas.

At 6/1/10 03:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

But on the Mavi Marmara, a ship owned by an organization that has been alleged to support terrorists the IHH, and had radical muslims on board, including one who has tried to incite violence against Jews, Ra'ad Salah, they reacted to being boarded violently with prepared knives and metal clubs, and threw soldiers overboard.
;;;
Bingo, there is an attempt to play this fact down. But it is coming out that over 100 were hardline Islamists.

Just as a side note.
Why were these people who boarded these ships not searched?
Why are there so many people who have no identification ?
None nada, zip...yet they want us to believe that they are peaceful oppressed do gooders. But they have no identification.
I live in Canada & if a bunch of people said they were coming to our shores, & were bringing goods & they had no papers, no justifiable reason to come to our country & were told not to...do any of you really believe the Canadian Government wouldn't intercept them ?
Or the American Government if it was America ?

Shake your fucking heads...these people were looking for trouble & they found it.
If they really wanted to be 'peaceful' not militant would have been found to be behind this. Not one person there would be without ID.

If you really believe it was 100 % a peaceful group, not one person would have attempted to resist the Isreal Armed forces.
There is more to this story than meets the eye & freaking out, going off half cocked is exactly what terrorists want & I'll believe that when the governments of all countries cancel taxes & give us anything we want for free.
This story is has about as good a chance of standing up to a real investigation as that does. Seeing as that can never happen, I don't believe this shit for a second.

If you do...you have been had !

I'm still curious why Israel has every right to forcefully board a ship in international waters, but said ship does not have the right to use force to defend itself, in international waters.

Anyone? Anyone?

At 6/1/10 09:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'm still curious why Israel has every right to forcefully board a ship in international waters, but said ship does not have the right to use force to defend itself, in international waters.

Anyone? Anyone?

Because they are full of themselves.The Israelis are so cocky.

I think probably the videos should be the first point. The videos are being pretty much solely released by Israel - it is likely that they seized all video equipment - and the videos only tell a small part of the story. Now, if we were to trust the source (which, considering its origin, is questionable)

What does the source have to do with it? It's on video tape! What, you think the Israeli military filmed a reenactment with props and helicopters and actors?
Don't be dense.

they lack any chronology and thus strip the videos of context (which has allowed people to lay their own context on it.) Had the activists already been attacked? Was this a response? Had they seen other ships attacked? Had the Israeli soldiers basically lost control of the situation on a ship? These videos do not tell us anything like this, or who attacked first (which seems to be one of the key points.)

Ask yourself this: if the Israelis knew the situation turned violent already, that for whatever reason, soldiers on parts of the ship not on videotape had fired their weapons, do you think they would still send guys down with paintball guns? That they wouldn't know? They have the radio feed between the commandos and the navy in some of the videos, so there was real time communication.

Secondly, the issue of Israel having to stop the activists. It may seem like a small point, but reasoning stems from this small mistake. Israel did not HAVE to stop them, they could have let them pass. They CHOSE to stop them in order to continue their blockade, which, again, they chose to place on Gaza. Please stop trying to reduce the Israeli position to acting in the only way possible. There were choices made here - about where to intercept, about what forces to use, etc.

Let me tell you something. This is a proud and somewhat paranoid nation we are talking about. Letting the convoy penetrate a three year-old blockade of an advanced military would be a humiliation beyond imagination. You might as well suggest that a nation should surrender immediately in case it were invaded because fewer people would lose their lives.

Again, inexplicable. You think the goddamned Israeli military should have bowed to a bunch of activists for the sake of avoiding violence?

Thirdly, yes the activists did have the option of transferring the aid to the Israelis to be distributed and they rejected the option. I can imagine a number of good reasons for this, such as mistrust of Israel (they, after all, being the state that is imposing the blockade the activists are against) and concerns about the distribution (would it entail an increase in the total amount of aid, or would it have acted as a substitute for aid already entering?)

You're right. Challenging armed naval vessels was a much wiser decision. Now Israel has seized all of the supplies, and is probably well within its rights to do with it as it pleases. Great planning, huh?
How can you defend these people? At the very least they showed wanton disregard for the safety of the passengers by confronting military ships.

However, the idea that Israel couldn't have done this in their or Gaza's territorial waters is plain wrong. Firstly, Israel maintains the blockade three nautical miles away from the Gazan coastline (territorial waters extend up to 12 n. miles.)

Yes, according to wikipedia. If you search "Israel blockade 20 miles" you'll see that's the real extent of the exclusion zone. They don't want ships meeting in the middle, which is probably why the fishing restriction is in place for three miles.
Believe it or not, Israeli officials actually indicated that they would not wait for the flotilla to reach the blockade itself, so as to keep the interception relatively unpredictable, as well as keep ships from the Gaza Strip from sailing out to meet it.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-2 11001-102-aid-ship-sets-sail-for-besiege d-gaza-bracing-for-israeli-blockade.html

Secondly, Gaza doesn't have territorial waters - it's not a state and the issue is yet to be resolved.

Funny, because gaza territorial waters brings up a hell of a lot of search results, not to mention that the foreign minister of Turkey said that the NGOs aboard the flotilla said they would approach Gazan waters (which you say don't exist), protest for a while, then drop off their goods at Israeli ports.

Thirdly, and this is particularly to adrshepard, don't call people retards, retard.

Durrrrr

At 6/1/10 08:06 AM, bcdemon wrote: So when did the flotilla lose its right to defend itself in international waters?

Oh god, not another one.

For the last time, people: THEY WERE GOING TO GAZA WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENTION OF RUNNING THE BLOCKADE. THEY SAID SO PUBLICLY. THEY REFUSED REQUESTS FROM BOTH ISRAEL AND TURKEY TO DROP THEIR GOODS AT ISRAELI PORTS. The exact, same, fucking, thing would have happened no matter how far away they were from the official line of blockade.
Maybe this isn't so incredible after all. When videotape clearly shows the activists were the aggressors, when Israel actually finds bulletproof vests, night vision goggles, gas masks, and 50 or so people on the terrorist suspicion lists, many without passports carrying envelopes with thousands of dollars, what else is there to dwell on but some invisible boundary?
What other strategy is there besides shutting one's eyes to everything outside of some text on a dusty page of maritime laws, and then creating your own version of events from there?

At 6/1/10 09:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'm still curious why Israel has every right to forcefully board a ship in international waters, but said ship does not have the right to use force to defend itself, in international waters.

Anyone? Anyone?

Oh, they most certainly have the right to use force in defense of their own offensive action. They exerted their right, and they paid for it.

Is trying to run a blockade and give supplies to an enemy not a hostile act? You keep bouncing around the fact that the flotilla did could not have done any more than it already had to provoke an incident.

At 6/1/10 01:13 PM, Warforger wrote: The video's themselves look like a huge overreaction from the start, there was already a Israeli speed boat circling the flotilla, meaning they didn't need two helicopters one to board the ship the other to record the possibly instigated attacks,

Now you're going after Israel because they used helicopters? BIG SCARRRRRYY HELICOPTERS!
The only reason they videotape everything these days is because they have to defend themselves against people like you who automatically decide against them.

Give us all a break, please.

At 6/1/10 10:23 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 6/1/10 01:13 PM, Warforger wrote: The video's themselves look like a huge overreaction from the start, there was already a Israeli speed boat circling the flotilla, meaning they didn't need two helicopters one to board the ship the other to record the possibly instigated attacks,

Now you're going after Israel because they used helicopters? BIG SCARRRRRYY HELICOPTERS!
The only reason they videotape everything these days is because they have to defend themselves against people like you who automatically decide against them.

Give us all a break, please.

Yet, you don't need a heli to board the goddamn boat, fuck you didn't even need commando's, the most dangerous weapon on the boat was a knife, there wasn't even a simple slingshot on there, what goddamn justification is there for commando's?

In other news here is a snippet of some of the things prohibited in the blockade. As you can pick up these are targeted to destroy whats left of the Gazan economy

At 6/1/10 06:19 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/1/10 04:47 PM, 1Stalker1 wrote:

At 6/1/10 04:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Yes, and the body count and infrastrcuture damage speaks for itself. For every dead Israeli... oh, ten dead Palestinians. Or, "Arab scum" or what you Israeli's call them again? But most of them were kids, so they only count as 2/3 or what?

For 1 Israeli soldier 300 terrorists, even for 1 Israeli dead soldier 100 terrorists. (The dead body example happened before)

Israel tries to not hit civilians, sadly it is impossible since terrorists are shooting their rockets from hospitals and schools. Israel tries to avoid hitting civilian.

Maybe instead of bombing them you could you know, attack them with special forces? I don't get why you would need missiles and bombs fighting terrorists.

Last time it happened the world was like "What? You send soldiers to attack them? This is racist!"
Now it is just sending aircrafts to destroy underground caves.

At 6/1/10 08:13 PM, Musician wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_
east/10208027.stm

Some points of interest:

Speaking as he arrived back in Berlin wrapped in a blue blanket, Mr Paech, a member of a German opposition party, said Israel's operation "was not an act of self-defence".

He said that he saw, he was open to the possibility of others on the ship having knives, with good reason.

"Personally I saw two-and-a-half wooden batons that were used... There was really nothing else. We never saw any knives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NBn8n9BX Q0

________________________________________
___

Activist Bayram Kalyon, arriving back in Istanbul, had also been a passenger on the Mavi Marmara.

"The captain... told us 'They are firing randomly, they are breaking the windows and entering inside. So you should get out of here as soon as possible'. That was our last conversation with him."

Oh so a secondhand account pf an hysterical captain is credible now? Remember they were armed with paintball guns as well as sidearms, in the hysteria the captain may well have not known the difference. Also remember that this is Israel's equivalent of the Navy SEALs. They are some of the deadliest people alive, if they were really "firing randomly", by which we would take to mean losing control and engaging any target, we would expect far more than 9 dead

Meanwhile, in Nazareth, Israeli Arab MP Haneen Zuabi - who was on the flotilla - told a press conference thatIsraeli forces began firing while still in the helicopters hovering over the ships.

________________________________________

Most Arab MKs do well to skirt treason charges, they are certainly not objective observers.

New video released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF 24

Shows the activists throw a stun grenade at the navy boat, and waiting with bats and chains.