butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes i am. You simply described what happened, you didn't look at why they happened - and you called this a 'reason' It's not.
Yes i am. You simply described what happened, you didn't look at why they happened - and you called this a 'reason' It's not.
No, I described the reason behind their mindset.
It's a complex point, I know, but maybe you'll come to grasp it when you're bored with picking a fight.
This after your OP...
How disingenuous can you get?
The motives you ascribe, the situation that you imagine, the chronology that you imply, every part of it is conspiratorial.
You know damn well that your use of the term "conspiracy" is being used here simply as a smear. You wish to associate my argument with the kind of lunacy associated with 9/11 or Kennedy. The kind of argument that sees all and every discrepancy as evidence for an increasingly intricate and unprovable theory and pulls in all and every unrelated "fact" to construct a grand narrative". By using the term "conspiracy in this sense, you are being dishonest and I object to your use of the term.
Was there a cabinet level plan (conspiracy if you like) to kill protesters to further an agenda, yes I am saying there was. If you disagree then you are free to show how that can not be the case. You can't and you won't. Instead you are content to scream "lunacy" at me instead. You are free to do that too of course just as I am free to treat your "argument" with contempt.
I have given you several examples of the Israeli government engineering situations to further their own agenda. Why is it so incomprehensible that they engineered this one?
You can't establish your own argument on the facts and now you call for me to prove a negative?
You're logically incontinent.
I doubt there was a cabinet-level plan to kill. All they needed to do was send in some teenage conscripts, telling them that the passengers were armed terrorists who planned to kill them. It works every day in Palestine.Was there a cabinet level plan (conspiracy if you like) to kill protesters to further an agenda, yes I am saying there was.
To be honest it was mainly terrible Israeli planning and a Gung Ho attitude from IDF soldiers who are used to not being accountable for their actions that were to blame for the deaths. I do not think Israel planned to kill people, but that doesn't make them any less responsible.
They tried to use shock and awe tactics with tear gas grendaes etc, which I believe they hoped would subdue the passengers of the aid ship by making them believe they were under attack. This backfired on them when the protesters fought back against the soldiers who had rapelled down onto the deck and were isolated and fairly easy targets. The IDF were then far to quick to use deadly violence against civilians. Any civilian casualties were always going to cause Israel problems and the decisioon to arm these soldiers with sidearms containign live rounds was very questionable.
Talks of mercenaries and terroists, etc are ludicrious. Israel can't even admit as much as they made some big mistakes in the planning and execution of the operation.
Of course Israel ws enforcing an illegal and morally rephrensible blockade who's main aim is collective punishment, so they shouldn't be suprised that when something went wrong it was going to fall down hard on their heads.
Psychology as well, what a master.
I don't think I've ever seen a post from you which isn't some little dig or snipe.
It's a pity that you don't feel obliged to offer, well, anything.
Open your eyes then. I've even given a try-hard like you help. As if that makes your attempted-pompous intervention any better.
Oh the irony from the master of sneering sweary gnashing of teeth and smear-mongering nothingness
I've got to be honest. There's been scant evidence of any overarching Socratic method.
That's because there isn't. Just laughing at pomposity. Like that. Ha ha.
And that's supposed to be salt of the earth posting?
Lol
OK, i hope you enjoyed the gastro-pub. Bye.
Interesting posts.
On reflection, I'm not sure that I agree with the OP's conclusions, but cannot find a better explanation.
It all comes down to why.
On the one hand, I can see Israel being dismissive of a relatively hostile, and to a fair degree, hypocritical*, rest of the world, but, Israel cannot exist in total isolation. Fair enough, they will have US support, the fact that they appear not to have British support is a disgrace, but the US is a long way away.
Israel needs markets for its goods, particularly arms. If no one is buying Israeli goods, the country would be bankrupt in a relatively short time, and even the US government cannot do anything to alleviate the situation, the US public would look askance at their government buying Israeli oranges.
So, the unanswered question is; how will Israel benefit from total isolation? Having thought long and hard, I really cannot see a benefit.
Where have I sworn at you?
Quite.The government has very little to gain from total isolation and it isn't going to happen.
All it indicates is a state comfortable with using extremely repressive and violent methods of social control in pursuit of its' (overt and covert) policies.What I think is the problem here is that some people are assuming that brutal actions by a state are indicative of some sort of unusual militaristic insanity, rather than just being business as usual. Killing hundreds or thousands of people to retain control of an area is standard behaviour. It doesn't imply a rampaging out-of-control "rogue state" likely to irrationally invade anywhere even at the cost of its own destruction, any more than it did when the now deceased Mr S. Hussein was in power in Iraq.
What does this mean?
I don't have to formulate some profound reinterpretation of any event whenever I come across some crackpot conspiracy theory to do with it.
In fact, if that was the norm, it'd be almost impossible to have any kind of rational debate.
Actually, if you're going to dismiss something as "crackpot", it's usually good manners to at least give some indication as to why you believe that to be so, and perhaps to offer an alternative.
Otherwise, all you're doing is thumbing your nose childishly.
Now the potential demos turning into an attack on them are 'gone'.