UN investigation reveals...

Remove all ads!

Are you criticizing my quote or the one you wrote?

When a whole group of Muslim countries is constantly banding together to hit Israel for human rights violations, many of which are specious in nature, it gets tiresome.

I did not say everyone who criticized Israel is Anti-Semitic, and I'm on record as being opposed to that mindset. Israel frequently does deserve criticism. it's just that the source countries are such laughable tools in terms of their own human rights record that it's difficult to take them seriously or put much stock in their assertions.

 

The inverse of that is "Anyone who critizes (insert Muslim-centric controversy here) is an Islamophobe." which I've heard thrown around all too often these days in regards to the Koran burning/Ground-Zero Mosque. Not everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic, just like not everyone who criticizes Islam needs a death sentence on their head.

 

I would like to bring attention to a quote of Ragusa's which I found fascinating.

I wonder where these 112 eyewitnesses were that they were able to testify. I would guess that they were probably on the ships that were raided. This could sound crazy, but they probably aren't the biggest fans of Israel.

So this means that this UN report is based on the interviews of 112 people who in all probably are anti-Israel and on the forensic evidence collected by Turkish (an islamic nation) officials. Does it say anywhere in the report when the Turks got access to the corpses. I'm guessing that it wasn't that speedy and of course there isn't any chain of evidence, but those are just minor details (please note sarcasm)

When the point of a report and/or an organization is to bash Israel, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that that is what it says and that the usual suspects follow in lockstep

 

For all the whingers here who claim the report is biased because it only includes the victims (ie. flotilla passengers) accounts, need I point out that this is because Israel refused to cooperate? Israel refuses to contribute to the report, and then complains afterwards that it is biased due their lack of contribution. LOL.

The Israelis were given ample opportunity to present their account of events during the investigation, and chose not to. **** THEM.

 

Snook, Shoshino,
ah yes, bias, that old bogeyman. Of course.

Please don't be disingenuous. Bias doesn’t necessarily matter. The question that counts is: “Is the claim true?” If you have to go beyond that and look at the credibility of the author, then you do so. But the place to start is the truth of the statement itself.

When a cop who hates you catches you speeding while drunk, his bias (and glee at seeing you get caught) ought to be the last of your concerns. The bias of the accuser then doesn't matter all that much when the facts are against you. Bias is a constant companion. If bias would discount testimony, courts would get nowhere. Rape victims (and their friends and extended families) are usually quite biased against the rapists. That doesn't discount their testimony in front of a jury. Which is a good analogy: The accused in a criminal trial have the right to stay silent - which is a double edged sword - since silence comes at the risk that the court then will then use the other available evidence. Israel faces that same problem, and, in not cooperating, faces the same consequences.

People who use the bias argument usually search for a reason to discount what they don't want to hear anyway. Accuser bias serves that end just fine. As I said before, the place to start is the truth of the statement itself. Finding bias helps hot having to go there.

The Israelis shot that kid four times in the head, at close range, and chain of evidence, schmevidence, that in itself gives testimony to the application of excessive force. What on earth should he have done to justify what amounts to his execution? And it wasn't just him. News outlets probably mainly focus on the kid because he was young, photogenic, and an American citizen (which doesn't make killing him a worse or lesser crime). The other guys the Israelis shot, who mentions them? Oh never mind. They're Turks, Arabs or Muslims without Furkan Dogan's redeeming quality of also being an American citizen.

When the IDF milled over Rachel Corrie that was cold blooded murder as well, and the Israelis to this day still don't cooperate with the probe. Since everything that could possibly come out can only make them look bad, the Israelis have consequently stalled any investigation (creating some doubt about the Israelis ever investigating the flotilla) - for seven years now. Corrie will never get the justice of having her murderer go to jail. Indeed, her family is now fighting a civil suit, which has produced gems like this, under oath: There are no civilians in wartime. That expresses the kind of attitude that resulted in atrocities for which German soldiers were hanged after WW-II. Probably rightly so.

It is strange in a sense, I used to watch all those cold war movies where the evil Commies pushed around Americans - and the typical lines then were: Hey you can't do that to me, I am an American citizen! You will hear from my government! Not here. These folks were fair game. With American post facto consent. Just like a 2003 bill calling for a thorough Israeli investigation in Corrie’s killing was prevented by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from getting out of the committee. It's all about not having to go there. How times change.

 

Israel didnt have to cooperate, because this was carried out without mandate from the security council, why would you cooperate with an organisation led by a group which constantly try to make you look bad simply to keep the world from looking at their own atrocious human rights records?

theyre cooperating with the actual UN investigation.

no they didnt

only one shot has been thought to be at close range. My question, was he armed? we know that the first landing team was ambushed and had their weapons taken from them, this kid has been singled out as a target, and shot repeatedly at range. and then finished off at close range, that is legitimate tactics to take down a threat.
to those who like to think Israel were executing innocent civillians, why werent there more deaths?

I disagree, that would be like blaming a bus driver of murder when he hits someone who steps onto the road.



you kneel down infront of one of these, you get what you deserve, if it were me driving it, I would have thought she'd moved at last minute like any normal human would, she stayed there, now out of view of the cab, its her own stupid damn fault, darwinism at work.

Why is everyone so intent on painting Isralies as cold blooded murderers? theyre people, like you, they dont just decide "Im going to kill this person", in war, things like this happen, thousands of civillians died in afghanistan and Iraq, many of them were probably killed in what could look like suspicious circumstances, but when your in that situation, sometimes it becomes fire first, ask questions later, suspicious looking objects can become guns or could be a video camera, when you know the enemy is armed because they took 15 guns off your collegues and you know theyre willing to use force because your friends have just been picked out of the water and others are laying on the ground in a pool of blood, it all gets very black and white. Its dark, there's something in his hand which he is holding in a raised position, maybe even held it to his eye, good enough for me, soldiers dont get paid to die.
Use some empathy, the IDF itself has criticised the tactics used, but found that the use of force was justified, which it was, they didnt shoot first, they shot when their lives were on the line, outnumbered, nowhere to flee, under normal civic actions, CS would have surpressed resistance, and it would have been a peaceful boarding action, but not here, because the crew were ready for a fight, they had gasmasks, the use of lethal force was authorised as a last resort, and I dont think anyone can disagree that the soldiers themselves had no other choice, it was them or us, so to say.

 

Shoshino,

Currently, Israel is in persistent defiance of a sizeable number of UN resolutions* and they give a damn. They are the subject of about 138 resolutions, most of which call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. What that means is this: They don't cooperate because they don't want to - not because they are not obliged to.

I am tired of your apologetics. If you want to, as it seems, you can continue to kid yourself - be my guest - just don't waste my time.

Just this: The driver of the caterpillar wasn't alone. This wasn't just between him and Corrie. There was the unit he belonged to that observed the scene. Corrie wore a day glow orange hi vis jacket. She was well visible, and since that protest was announced - it was a high publicity event - the Israelis were aware of her presence. And the rest of the unit, with whom the driver was in radio contact, didn't have their sight obstructed by the vehicle.

That pic must have been a couple minutes before her death. She appears hard to overlook. Your narrative of events is exceedingly unconvincing.

​

This one after the incident.

​

*

Spoiler

... off the top of my head for instance Nos. 237 (the one about the 1967 borders), 446 (the one stressing that Israel as an occupying power is not allowed to build settlements) and, fittingly in this context, 673 "deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations"

 

I don't think that Israel is the sole political entity to defy a UN resolution. Nor do I believe that it is unreasonable for them to refuse to cooperate with an investigation that seems to have made its mind up before even starting. There's no value in participating in a kangaroo court.

Of course they don't want to comply with the UN mandates. They are hardly alone in that. The only reason larger entitites aren't facing reams of similar mandates is that they have the clout to block the damn things before they ever get passed!

Assuming that the evidence regarding the kids death is accurate as reported, then yeah, Israel (or a group of Israelis) acted improperly. But there is sufficient doubt in my mind as to the honesty of the reporters, their objectivity, and the overall importance of this. it doesn't matter to me if the kid was a US citizen or not -- if it was wrong it was wrong regardless of the victim's citizenship. The fact is the kid chose to go into a dangerous situation, and he paid the price. Make him out to be a martyr if you wish, to me he's just someone who made a truly stupid decision.

 

LKD, you miss my point.

I was expressly addressing Shoshino's sham argument that Israel was not obliged to cooperate in the absence of a UN resolution, since in that he was implying that, if there was one, they would. Alas, they don't, and never have.

You say that so easily.

If your brother were so stupid to be disrespectful towards a policeman, who then whacks him up, and your bother dies as a result, who do you hold accountable - the cop or your brother? Or say, it wasn't your brother, but some Mormon, protesting to exercise his beliefs in China, and who then gets mistreated by Chinese police and dies as a result.

It is only easy to be so dismissive of these kids because you have already classified them as 'the other'. You wouldn't apply the same standard to people you sympathise with.

 

Wrong

hmm, not hard to miss a standing woman 15 feet away from you, but a kneeling one? and then add a rapidly building earth mound infront of her and youve got one invisible chickie.

and? your still avoiding my "stupid person kneels down infront of a bulldozer and gets killed = darwinism" oh, and that she was actually killed from being crushed by the pile of debris being pushed by the bulldozer after she attempted to climb on it to get the drivers attention and fell backward, completely out of the drivers field of view.

so what changed? theyve always been so careful before! sounds very clearly like an accident.

the driver wasnt even an isralie, so whats his motive for this henious crime?

I sympathise because Ive driven a challenger tank, great visibility unsil something is in the way, if your kneeling on the otherside of a mound of earth and the tank drives over/through it your dead.

the simple truth is, she was stupid and she died for that stupidity, these kind of people think nothing of the incredibly dangerous actions they are taking, and blame the unfortunate driver when they go wrong.

 

Shosino,
I've had enough of your follies for now.

Aren't conservatives fond of saying: Who cares if everybody does it, when it is a crime!

 

ah rags... as always, so convinced you're right

Im sorry if I dont work on the theory that the driver is a lying, murdering, blood thirsty bastard just because he's working for Israel... like you do

 

Correct. But if it doesn't choose to cooperate, it's rather laughable for them to complain later than the report is biased because it doesn't have any contribution from them.

Or maybe not. It seems that quite a few Zionists actually buy the snake oil they are selling!

 

Intelligent people and intelligent nations don't participate in kangaroo courts. Only people with an axe to grind would believe the vitriol being spewed by one side to be the "honest truth". There is a reason why in courts of law there is the prosecution and the defense.

 

You spin a tale that that to believe would require a willing suspension of disbelief on my part. No, thanks.

I completely understand that people in court facing charges of murder deny their wrongdoing. That happens all the time, it is perfectly rational considering the prospective punishment, and they are entitled to do that. It is by the way exceedingly likely he was only following orders.

The point is this: IMO the death was ordered by a superior officer - since Corrrie was an obstacle to the destruction of the home, she was removed like an obstacle - with a bulldozer. The quote from that Israeli officer from the civilian trial is tell tale: There are no civilians in wartime. Which suggests, strongly, that he viewed and did treat Corrie like a combatant, and the destruction of the home like an act in war. It certainly suggests that it was not an accident.

The problem with that is that there are civilians in war time, as Israel has acknowledged by signing the Geneva Conventions (never mind that it is dubious that the Israelis are currently at war in the occupied territory), and Corrie was a civilian, so there is something quite dissonant about the testimony of that officer.

Your apologetics don't change that, and indeed, the lengths you go to to actively delude yourself are truly frightening.

Snook,
you may well not cooperate with kangaroo courts, but you also do not cooperate if the outcome can only make you look bad because you did wrong after all.

The Goldstone report was meticulously even handed, but Goldstone was attacked anyway for being biased because he did find fault on Israel's part. Suggestion: Maybe he found fault on Israel's part because Israel was at fault? Unacceptable!

Everything but a full pass for Israel whatever it does is unacceptable for the pro Israelis apologists it seems. IMO 'right or wrong, my tribe' is the stance of a scoundrel.

 

Where any investigation into Israeli activities which isn't held by Israel or U.S = Kangaroo Court.

That's insane. Remember, it's axiomatic that Israel can do no wrong, and that everyone who finds fault is insane/evil/hypocritical/anti-semitic/has an axe to grind/is a Muslim/is an Arab/is a Palestinian/is biased/take your pick

 

Ragusa, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but even if I supportede what a protestor was doing, or knew and loved the protestor, I would still hold that protestor accountable for doing something stupid.

 

Yes, but are you willing to hold those being protested against to the same standard? Doesn't sound much like it.

 

I don't buy it. In my experience people don't react that way. They may say that, but they don't react that way.

Look how everybody (rightly so) got worked up about the murder of Daniel Pearl - a brutal crime if there ever was one. Daniel Pearl certainly got himself in a dangerous situation, perhaps even recklessly. Doesn't everybody know that Pakistan is a dangerous place? His fault he was brutally murdered? Does his 'self endangerment' count as a mitigating circumstance for his murderers?

By your standard it apparently does. Gee, no big deal, after all it was his choice to go there! It wouldn't have happened to him had he instead travelled to Paris! Which is as much pointless as an insight as it is undeniably true. Sadly, there is no insight to be gained by uttering such a truism. It's a bloody waste of time, and an insult to the victim.

 

Truth be told, I remain unconvinced that the operator of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over due to an order from an Israeli officer. The driver was not a soldier in the Israeli army - he was a civilian, who was hired by the company owning the bulldozer to do this job. The reason why I find this important, is that when an officer orders a soldier to kill someone, they probably will do it. When you order a civilian to kill someone, they most likely won't - unless there is sufficient coersion applied. I know I wouldn't run someone over just because someone from the army told me to.

The bulldozer operator has spoken out - if he was threatened by the Israeli officer with his own life/loss of job/etc, why wouldn't he say so when asked? When looking at the two explanations of A) He didn't see her and unwittingly ran her over and B) he deliberately ran her over because he was ordered to do so, I find A quite plausible and B quite implausible.