It's Official: There was No Humanitarian Aid on Mavi Marmara

reply to post by dbates


Obviously.

Or maybe they were just protesting and standing up for something they believe in?

I don't think there's many 'obviously's' in this whole sad affair.

Originally posted by ANNED
If it carried no aid but carried radicals take it and remove all the fuel and anything that would leak and pollute and sink it

It was owned by a group that supports terrorist..

well, every single vehicle in the US military is owned by someone who supports terrorists. Should they all be destroyed?

And exactly which 'terrorists' owned the floatilla?

What a bunch of drivel

Originally posted by dbates
The Mavi Marmara, the ship all the shooting took place on, wasn't carrying any humanitarian aid at all.

Okay.
The Mavi Marmara is a "passenger ship".

Can they still claim that the ship was on a humanitarian mission?

Sure.

The ships could be divided between humanitarian cargo and humanitarians with their belongings/essentials.

It makes sense to utilize space for the aid, while still providing the people to help deliver and distribute the aid once arrived. I don't think this is unusual nor does it somehow prove any sort of malicious intentions on the part of the passengers.

I'm not sure what the point of this article is, other than to seek to justify the shooting death of nine or more people in international waters.

One of which took four bullets to the head and one to the chest in an almost execution-styled manner.

Humanitarians are allowed to accompany the humanitarian aid on a separate boat and not the cargo ships with the aid.

- Lee

By the way...did anyone catch the video of these "evil terrorist thugs" treating injured IDF soldiers?

There's some humanitarian aid for you.

- Lee

So what if 1 out of 7 ships didn't have aid, and the passengers needed to take supplies for themselves and they went to witness the events of that day which were supposed to be to meet Gazans (and not Israeli commandos). It's a ridiculous argument that the Mavi Marmari had to carry aid for Gaza in order to not be part of an aid flotilla.

Passenger ship does not = cargo ship.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by john124]

Yes it's so obvious now that those peskey peace protestors where marters and shoot themselves in the back, err ............... 3 times after they ate all the food aboard and Iserail was only trying to stop a mass suicide with ..... err...... yeah paintball guns.

You see a gargo ship can not sail empty without balast and all that cement was out of date and being used as to stop the ship turning over if all the terrorsts ran to port side all at the same time else the ship would had sunk and no one would had belived iserail.

why didn't someone tell me !

All them wheel chairs where not to give away but were aboard because all the peace protestors are on the dole and laging it for incapacity benifit .......... from Turkey and were well upset because they thought the DHSS was landing on deck to catch them all cheating.

I would go on about the tons and tons of paper but i'm sure you catch my drift.

Ok lets say that they were only going to help or witness this humanitarian delivery.There is something that still doesn't add up and that is why did they have all those metal pipes, wooden boards all stacked up and why do you attack if you are only going as an observer. I have seen the videos that show both sides of the argument. Yet I ask if the coast guard was going to board a passenger ship that you are on are you going to attack them. No you wouldn't. Also why did they have pipes and boards stacked up in a pile.As far as I know most passenger ships do not have stockpiles of pipes and boards just sitting around. It was shown in the videos of the ship after everything went down.

Ghandi would be proud of these peace activists.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Ghandi would be proud of these peace activists.

Indeed he would be

Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism

Gandhi's major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question came forth in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938, a time when intense struggle between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrant Jews had been on the anvil in Palestine. His views came in the context of severe pressure on him, especially from the Zionist quarters, to issue a statement on the problem. Therefore, he started his piece by saying that his sympathies are all with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time.

"But", Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract." The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews," tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."

>>Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism

Many of the most important authorities on ethics in the 20th century have contributed to the debate on Zionism. Mahatma Gandhi stated in "Harijan" on 26 October 1938: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs....But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart."

>>en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by lee anoma


Could you guide me to that video?

And I completely agree with your first post. It makes sense to have a ship with people to distribute the aid on the freight ships. It's not going to distribute itself.

The Humanitarians needed a fleet of ships to protect the supplies and their lives because Israel could have easily commandeered one ship or sank the aid ship. The aid ships actually needed an armada to travel the seas in the Mediterranean to help the most sanctioned and tortured country on Earth. If you think about it, the Gaza strip is just really a concentration camp for the Muslims living in Israel. They aren’t allowed anything that could help them prosper and progress.

Did you know Israel doesn't allow steel or cement to be imported into Gaza? The people that live there aren't even allowed to rebuild their homes after they are destroyed because Israel says cement can be used to make underground bunkers. Well, news flash! The only reason the people of Gaza would ever go through all the trouble of building bunkers would be to save their family’s lives from an Israeli bombing run.

Ok so there were piles of pipes and boards "after" the humanitarians had been quashed by the IDF commandos. Makes sense to me, that these would be piled up by the commandos for a great photo op after the raid. As to why would there be pipes, well for water and plumbing and electrical conduit are just a few reasons off the top of my head for the need of pipes.

Originally posted by At0mZer0
Funny...

I thought MODs were supposed to DENY IGNORANCE.

And not take sides.

It's quite obvious by not only this, but other posts that you have OBVIOUSLY taken a side where you should be impartial.

Where does it say here on ATS that MODS can not have opinions and take a side on an issue.

Please read: Moderators Are People Too.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Where does it say here on ATS that MODS can not have opinions and take a side on an issue.

Agreed but It also dramatically points out that Mods are bias towards one side...

I've had a lot of posts removed and I don't think they were over the top in anyway, certainly not as bad as many that were left in from the posters opposing my view...

It was obvious bias towards one side.......

Mods should not only be unbiased but should also be seen to be unbiased..

reply to post by tooo many pills


Cement and building materiels are prohibited because they have been used before to make tunnels to smuggle arms and funds into the country.

Originally posted by dbates
The Mavi Marmara, the ship all the shooting took place on, wasn't carrying any humanitarian aid at all. The only cargo it had was a group of rowdy passengers looking for a fight. Can they still claim that the ship was on a humanitarian mission? If so then how? Obviously their main goal was to create a faux PR nightmare for Israel. I suppose we can call their mission a success then.
[edit on 10-6-2010 by dbates]

Ow guess what! New unedited full videos have surfaced which were smuggled out from Israel which kinda blows out the whole Israeli pr campaign of terrorist in ship, not shooting on people before boarding etc etc.







Sorry better luck next time. May I advise a change of propaganda consultancy service.

reply to post by Skellon


Cement and building materiels are prohibited because they have been used before to make tunnels to smuggle arms and funds into the country.


yeah, and pencils are banned because they can poke on eye out!!!!!!

Ohh, and Chocolate is banned because they dont want the IDF getting fat when they take it off the children....

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Ghandi would be proud of these peace activists.

Not only that, he'd be right alongside the 'Israeli Navy Reserve' condemning these actions and the inconceivable blame being immediately shifted to the protesters.

They're right when they say:

"This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives."

Israeli Navy Reserve Officers official statement - Haaretz

They know how these situations should be handled and this wasn't it.

Once again proving the fact that there are plenty of honest Israelis that don't support the abusively vile and cruel actions planned out by their leaders.

They're the reason people hate the "Israeli policies" and not the "Israeli citizens".

Now if we could only get the religious and/or fundamentalist Americans who feel obligated to support Israel because of the will of their God to listen to the RIGHT group of Israelis we'd get somewhere. Probably real fast.

I don't see how any man of God could support this murderous travesty of justice even if the people on that boat were terrorist sympathizers.

- Lee

So let me get this straight....... because there was no Humanitarian Aid on board and probably some PR stunt...... this in some strange way justifies the actions of the IDF, prior to knowing what's on board?

Shoot first.... ask questions later?


The Mindset of some People is down right Scary!

reply to post by virgom129


Moderators are also members, I remember quite a few of them from well before they were Mods and the vast majority were excellent contributors here.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with Mods still posting and contributing, in fact I would like to see more of it.
As long as they don't Mod in a thread they participate in I can't see any problem with it at all, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.