A question about the Gaza Flotilla

reply to post by backinblack


Sorry, yes, I meant that in the context of those countries were about to attack Israel.

Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon


Of course they were planning an attack...

Just like how Iraq had WMD's

Just like how Iran is supplying Iranian weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq.

Just like how Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

Just like how Iran wants to wipe "Israel off the map".

Your arguments get staler by the second.

reply to post by Zamini


Really, you need to research this. I confess I made a mistake that backtoblack highlighted, but they had already began mobilizing their forces and had made preparations for the attack.

Regards, Skellon.

Ahh so you saying Israel was attacked was just a little mistake on your part??
You really meant to say Israel attacked them right?

But hang on, how do you then justify the land grab by Israel.

reply to post by backinblack


Nasser called for the destruction of Israel by Arab countries. I view that as a declaration of war / intent of hostile action, don't you?

Israel reacted on gathered intelligence and dealt a preemtive strike. It's best defence was an offence.

Regards, Skellon.

Really, you need to research this. I confess I made a mistake that backtoblack highlighted, but they had already began mobilizing their forces and had made preparations for the attack.

Regards, Skellon.

They had every reason to mobilize forces and be on alert as Israel had attacked them in the past and they saw events unfold..

Are you saying a country can not mobilizes forces on it's own soil without being attacked??

reply to post by backinblack


Had Israel called for the destruction of the neighbouring Arab states?

Regards, Skellon

Had Israel called for the destruction of the neighbouring Arab states?

Well current events says yes..

But Israel always says one thing while doing another.

understanding the flotilla and the turkish politics requires skill, dedication, research. haha no no j/k, it just requires a quick insight into the current political structure in turkey and i'm hollering from istanbul, from the middle of a party such big that no raver could survive it.

the jdp, justice and development party, are moderate islamists (though the average american would stop and ponder islam? moderate?) but yeah there is such plan in the western world mainly driven by the gulenist movement in close collab with the roman catholic church under the name interfaith dialogue. the aim is to create a buffer for radical islam in the middle east of course and modern turkey is (was) standing in the way, so the prime minister erdogan's party was skillfully engineered. now, they're just out of their 3rd general elections and took nearly 50% of the votes, leaving nearly no space for the opposition.

although the 1st flotilla was more genuine, the second one was rather vote hunting as the supplies could well been sent through the egyptian border rafah without risking the lives of the activists onboard. given the 50%, it seems to have worked. the jdp is after a major constitution change and required as much votes as possible to secure a number of min. 367 chairs in the parliament so they'd require no referendum to pass the constitution. these guys will remain in power as long as the global tptb want them to and the world should be prepared for further flotilla like crisis' involving israel.

there's a whole lot to write about the political situation in turkey in terms of the middle east, esp. the past 10-15 years, i might give a try in other posts later on.

reply to post by backinblack

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[21] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran

Source

It was the positioning at Sharm el-Sheikh that was viewed as an act of aggression. Essentially blockading a significant trade route for Israel.

Regards, Skellon.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by buster2010

 

Stay focused: WHY ISNT THERE PRESSURE ON EGYPT TO END ITS BLOCKADE?

edit on 7-7-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)

You want to watch the video again. THERE IS NO BLOCKADE.

reply to post by Skellon


So how should Europeans take the threat of Israel nuking European towns then? Was that an actual declaration of war?

reply to post by buster2010


And there were no concentration camps.


Oh wait, there were and I know people who were in them.

reply to post by buster2010


there's no longer a blockade as it was for the first flotilla. i've explained the reasons in my posts. the second flotilla was rather a political move of turkey's ruling party that was preparing for the third elections. many folk have disagreed with the take off of the second flotilla as it was too riskful for the lives of those on board, rafah was already open for access. the plan was to provoke voters and it worked.

reply to post by Zamini


Are you speaking of Martin van Creveld's words?

Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon

It was the positioning at Sharm el-Sheikh that was viewed as an act of aggression. Essentially blockading a significant trade route for Israel.

So all these Arab forces were mobilized and ready for war yet Israel caught them all off guard and destroyed most of the Egyptian airforce while still on the ground??

Yeah, I'll buy that crap..

reply to post by backinblack


Essentially, Israel out-foxed it's opponents through intelligence gathering and preparation over 2 years prior to the war. The Arabs were simply not in the same league in military thinking.

Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy


Letters are cargo. Emotional aid is just as important as physical aid. But a supporter of the zionist wouldn't understand something like this.

Or maybe an attack by the Arabs was NOT imminent and Israel merely used it as an excuse to attack and destroy the Arab forces while stealing more land..

That's just as probable right??

Originally posted by backinblack
Or maybe an attack by the Arabs was NOT imminent and Israel merely used it as an excuse to attack and destroy the Arab forces while stealing more land..

That's just as probable right??

Israel doesn't steal land it all belongs to them already. Remember god said it all belongs to them he just forgot to give them any kind of deed.