Hypothesis: No Hamas = No More Problems. For anyone.

Muzman on 7/6/2010 at 15:46

Quote Posted by CCCToad

As a sidenote, the AK47 uses a 7.56 round, a single one of which IS enough to knock down someone who is hit by it.

5.56 and Russian 7.62 rounds are comparable in most respects. It's the NATO 7.62 that's much meaner (and, as mentioned they're both rifle bullets capable of severe damage anyway. The boarding party wouldn't have been packing anything that large, even if they brought along Desert Eagles. Let's talk about guns instead. It's much more fun).

The Australian couple who were on the boat (he got shot in the leg) say the IMI shot first.
I still think demagogue's Intifada tactics theory is probably correct, on the cramped observation deck in the dark it played out a little worse. One paniced act by somone and it's on.

Malleus on 7/6/2010 at 15:47

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Is it still fishy if it's been reported on most major news websites?

As much as I despise Hamas, somewhere deep inside I want to believe that they are not that demented...

SubJeff on 7/6/2010 at 20:53

It's been reported in several places that they were refusing this aid because it was "tainted by blood". I shit you not.

Quote:

If they claim self defence it would help if they were not the attacker.

Are you being pigheaded for the sake of it or did you not see the videos or are you blind? I mean... wtf? You do know that no one on any of the other ships was killed, and perhaps that was because they didn't attack the IDF troops.

:tsktsk:

Kaleid on 7/6/2010 at 20:55

I find it more likely that Israel was more careful this time. Don't want another PR nightmare to deal with.

SubJeff on 7/6/2010 at 20:58

I mean the other ships in the same flotilla of course.

Rug Burn Junky on 7/6/2010 at 22:46

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

You do know that no one on any of the other ships was killed, and perhaps that was because they didn't attack the IDF troops.

...because it's not rape if you roll over and let them fuck you.

Tocky on 8/6/2010 at 02:44

To be fair it's sort of hard to tell who is raping who when everybody has thier pecker out playing leapfrog. I wish I knew what got them so worked up they brought a knife to a gun fight. Maybe they thought they only had the pepper guns. Maybe some SFB IDF shot grandpa. We just don't know. It was ballsy. It was stupid. I would nominate them for honorary southerner except there was no fun involved.

And Zach, I saw it twice on NBC news so maybe they have a link. It looked as if it had been zoomed in but plenty clear enough.

Schechter on 10/6/2010 at 04:46

Quote Posted by Kaleid

I find it more likely that Israel was more careful this time. Don't want another PR nightmare to deal with.

Anything the IDF does is a PR nightmare, because the powers that be either aren't aware of the current political climate, or else they don't care. Either way, it's frustrating and dangerous.

old toro on 10/6/2010 at 11:57

Quote:

Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz". The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a "clarification/correction", explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.

The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-gaza-flotilla)

1. Read the bolded statement and then open the guardian article. The surprise is that the guardian article is about this spoof video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg) [which indeed is a PR mistake], but is NOT a retraction about the "go back to Auschwitz" video. The original "go back to Auschwitz" video is here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ)

2. If someone took the time to look on google, would find out that IDF never released retractions for "go back to Auschwitz" video or the "Al-Qaida" links [if IDF ever mentioned Al-Qaida in this context]. In fact both of these claims are coming from one unverified source: (http://maxblumenthal.com)
Yes, The Guardian is an example of journalistic deontology ;)

3. Regarding Hamas and dementia: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OGhj43GAE)