Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone. - by SubJeff
CCCToad on 2/6/2010 at 22:24
While Israel can hardly be declared a victim, that doesn't mean the incident wasn't a PR stunt. It just meshes too well with tactics used by Extremist muslims, and even ones that have been encountered first hand by people I know in a unit that was recently deployed (I'm not at liberty to say which). Multiple times they encountered civilians being used as human shields by the Taliban, and at least one of those times the dead civilians were presented as civilians "slaughtered" by US troops. Its a tactic that plays brilliantly to both existing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, and to the sensationalist nature of Western News (news flash....civilians DIE in wars, but that brings up a whole other can of worms).
Israel is even easier to goad because their consideration of civilians manifests itself only in providing them a warning to get out of the way. As far as they are concerned, if you stick around after they warn they are coming in, you might as well be an enemy belligerent. Its a fairly effective policy in their ground clashes because it neutralizes the effectiveness of tactics that involve placing civilians in harms way, and one of the reasons they are generally more successful than the U.S. in ground operations against insurgent groups. However, the naval embargo is a different situation. Whereas Israel does a good job of "damage control" PR in Gaza, any efforts were doomed to failure right from the start because the ship had made international news even before trying to breach the blockade. Both sides knew what was going to happen: Israel is willing to kill civilians, and the organizers of this stunt knew that and were happy to sacrifice a few civilians.
Anyway, none of that is intended to be a moral judgement on my part, its just a tactical analysis of what was occurring in this particular incident.
Jokerman on 2/6/2010 at 22:25
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Actually, the slightly liberal social agenda mixed with an extreme irrational hawkishness with respect to (and on behalf of) Israel is the very embodiment of a Neocon caricature.
I didn't know Neocons are pro gay marriage. Thanks, now my appreciation to them has gone up a notch.
Quote Posted by Muzman
Jokerman:Good for you, me ol' fellow traveller. Why then would you bother with implications that RBJ is secretly harbouring anti-Israel sentiments that you're going to courageously catch him out on? If you're not the judgemental type that is.
(and it's only projection if the projector isn't aware of it)
Brother, when I show someone a footage of bearded thugs, chanting anti-semitic chants, telling the camera they want to die on this mission, storing a mass array of cold weapons, trying to lynch the soldiers with clubs and knives, throwing one of them to a lower deck about 30 feet high and
he still insists that they didn't come to provoke and to paint Israel as blood-thirsty and criminal in their ongoing PR war...
I have to come to the conclusion that a. he's either infinitely stupid or b. has an anti- Israel bias.
Since RBJ is not stupid (he said so himself), I have to conclude he has a bias.
Sorry if you find it offensively judgmental.
CCCToad on 2/6/2010 at 22:31
Quote:
Brother, when I show someone a footage of bearded thugs, chanting anti-semitic chants, telling the camera they want to die on this mission, storing a mass array of cold weapons, trying to lynch the soldiers with clubs and knives, throwing one of them to a lower deck about 30 feet high and he still insists that they didn't come to provoke and to paint Israel as blood-thirsty and criminal in their ongoing PR war...
That doesn't mean Israel is entirely blameless: the only reason the mission was even tried was because Israeli policy is to kill civilians who enter or remain in areas that Israel designates as combat zones.
SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 22:43
I'm open to whatever the inquiry finds btw. I've no doubt that Israel could handled this better. They could have:
1. Waited 'til the flotilla got into Israel water.
2. Nerfed the propellers of the flotilla.
3. Just physically blocked the ships with military ships.
4. Boarded in the day in a less aggressive manner.
Yes, many things could have been different.
Whilst I don't endorse Fragony's stubborn, and large off topic, frothing, nor Jokerman's attempts at putting RBJ down I do agree with Jokerman's example of "A being true does not make B untrue" and so on.
Israel fell hook, line and sinker for this trick/trap.
That does not mean that.
a. These idiots weren't jonesing for a physical confrontation, and aren't the peaceniks that they are pretending to be now.
b. These idiots didn't attack the IDF before they were attacked thus causing the deaths of their comrades.
You could say "But if the IDF weren't there it wouldn't have happened!" and then I could say "If the flotilla wasn't there it wouldn't have happened!" and then you could say "If the Gazans weren't suffering so badly it wouldn't have happened!" and I c ah, you get the idea.
The IDF mishandled this and it is complicating matters. It's a shame because I really wonder what the world would have to say if the flotilla was boarded in Israeli waters after being told not to enter that territory. I honestly don't think it would that much different. The "piracy" bit would be left out but not a lot else.
I see another ship is heading for the blockade with the aim of "breaking" it. The name of the ship? The Rachel Corrie. I don't know if this is genius, hilarious, sad or all of them at once.
SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 22:45
Quote Posted by CCCToad
That doesn't mean Israel is entirely blameless: the only reason the mission was even tried was because Israeli policy is to kill civilians who enter or remain in areas that Israel designates as combat zones.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuullshiiiiit.
Jokerman on 2/6/2010 at 22:46
Quote Posted by CCCToad
That doesn't mean Israel is entirely blameless: the only reason the mission was even tried was because Israeli policy is to kill civilians who enter or remain in areas that Israel designates as combat zones.
I never said Israel is blameless, but I blame her only of clumsiness and gullibility. This is not the first "humanitarian" ship to be boarded, and while tempers flared in previous missions, they always ended without bloodshed (the most severe violence I heard of was an Israeli soldier getting a burning cigarette butt to his face). It is clear that there was an intelligence failure. The navy should have been informed that Islamists are on board.
The policy is not "killing civilians"- it's the same lawful procedure and code that ANY army in the world follows: give a fair audible warning, shoot in the air, then toward the legs and only after then, if the civilian still fails to comply, you may shoot to harm.
Show me an army that doesn't use this procedure and I'll show you some dead soldiers and an army without teeth.
Rug Burn Junky on 2/6/2010 at 23:01
Quote Posted by Jokerman
Sorry if you find it offensively judgmental.
It's not offensively judgmental, it's offensively simplistic. You are small minded enough to believe that the clips you hunted down tell the whole story. To look at those clips uncritically and take them at face value as impartial. To believe that skepticism of the apologist clips you fall back on is evidence of bias in and of itself. To believe that because some of the protesters hate Israel, they all do. To believe that the flotilla reaching Gaza was a threat. To believe that Israel had no choice but to board that ship to stop it. To believe that the protesters had no right to defend their ship from (in their minds) an unwarranted and illegal boarding. To believe that Israel is absolved because they are responding to "hatred."
In short, you believe a lot of things that simply require you to block out reality in order for them to be coherently true. There's this weird sort of cognitive dissonance in your posts that is pretty plain to see.
Yes, the protesters clearly meant to provoke Israel. They meant to bring public recognition to their plight. That does not make Israel a victim of "PR stunt." Israel enabled such a stunt by creating the environment in which this occurred and by being an active participant in it. They could not have been made to look badly without their own direct actions for which they are being criticized. It is impossible to ignore this. When faced with the choice of defusing and escalating, at every turn Israel has chosen to escalate. That is not a victim.
SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 23:08
That's just the way they roll.
TafferLing on 2/6/2010 at 23:10
Every form of civil protest since Socrates has been essentially a PR stunt.
Queue on 2/6/2010 at 23:14
Oh my God, I want in on this one! I believe I can add some sort of relevance to this.
So my two-cents worth....
Bum tiddling shit fucker. HAMAS! Kill the morons!! Buddha bopping Christ with gay flotilla piracy and fett blatherings and humanitarian bloodshed. Shit. And then that thing happened. So he said this, and he said that. And then the Jews... STUPID STUPID STUPID.
*sighs* You know what I mean?
phfft...Israel
Thank you.
