Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Israel. The real reason for the attack

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.
 
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.

Sorry, but your post had the analytical weight of 'the reason they were attacked is because a ship pulled up along side them and a helicopter descended upon them'. It's childish post-pub rubbish.
 
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 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.
 
You can't establish your own argument on the facts and now you call for me to prove a negative?

You're logically incontinent.

Tell you what. Go away and think of an argument and then come back and present one and we can discuss it. Ok

I have established my argument on several substantial posts with impeccable sources. I could be wrong but you need to present a bit more than nasty shouty words to challenge it.
 
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.
 
Was there a cabinet level plan (conspiracy if you like) to kill protesters to further an agenda, yes I am saying there was.
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.
 
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.

For those who rumble on about substantive analysis this is about as spot on as you're going to get.

Paranoid delusions might make you feel all warm inside but they're still fairy tales.
 
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.

Oh the irony from the master of sneering sweary gnashing of teeth and smear-mongering nothingness
 
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.

You're missing a fundamental point.
It isn't whether Israel benefits, or how, it's about how a clique of ideologues benefit, and about what those ideologues want, which is hegemony in the Middle East, and it's a hegemony they know that the US, as attuned to realpolitik as ever, will support. You don't need a properly functional market economy when you've got a big brother "lending" you money.
 
Where have I sworn at you?

My point is, apart from calling me names (foolish,, lunatic etc) and smearing my argument by attempting to paint it as some kind of insane conspiracy theory on a par with the moon landings were faked or 9/11 was an inside job nuttery, you have said absolutely NOTHING. Nothing at all.

So, if you have an argument to make as to why my argument is as outrageously unrealistic as you claim, by all means make it. I welcome it. If not spare me your pompous sneering.

Thanks.
 
The government has very little to gain from total isolation and it isn't going to happen.
Quite.
Quasi-isolation, on their own terms, however, is something that some of the religiously-inclined Jewish Zionists, especially insofar as ridding the country of all forms of religion that don't accord with their own.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Indeed
 
Back
Top Bottom