I searched for a previous topic on this but cant find where its gone so apologies if i missed something and you dont want this discussed here. Altho i do think this this worth watching since it sheds alot of new light on what really happened on the Mavi Marmara.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Panorama - What happened on the Flotilla to Gaza
Collapse
X
-
And here is an opposing perspective to the program: Palestine Solidarity Campaign
While i lean slightly to the side of the activists on board given some of the points raised in that link (tho not towards the Islamist activists) i have no actual stance on the overall situation myself. Both the documentary and the issues raised against it put forward strong cases, its difficult to see which is more in the 'right'.
-
* Why was Israel's ‘right' to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?
* Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel's siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.
* Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the ‘thousands of rockets' fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.
* Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed - shot from a helicopter - before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.
* Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?
* Why were the autopsy reports - which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can't constitute self-defence - not used, or even mentioned?
* Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists - which led to nine deaths?
* Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word ‘terrorists' to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandoes. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandoes, when these ‘terrorists' were so willing to attack?
* Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
* Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain's deck?Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Comment
-
If it looks like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it sounds like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it smells like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it walks like a deliberate setup for confrontation;
What do you think it is?
I'm no particular fan of Isreal (Like 'em better than their neighbors, though.), but this was so obviously an attempt to provoke an over-response from them that it is laughable to characterize it as anything else. When the Commandos didn't come in with guns blazing, (as desired) the "activists" had to take it to the next level to FORCE the use of deadly force. Soldiers have the right to defend themselves, which they did.
Even were that NOT the case; When you saunter in to a politically charged situation where terrorism and violence are commonplace, you shouldn't be surprised if you get your a$$ shot off, whether you had it coming or not.sigpicUSS North Dakota
Comment
Comment