19 Killed As Israel Storms Unarmed Aid Convoy

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

... blather about false conclusions. Fucking twit.

... the implication here being that none of the conclusions are false because I am a twit. Ah, that ad hom habit is hard to kick, even for you, Clutch!

Or it could be an explicit allusion to a broad IDF practice of applying a theoretically non-lethal or less harmful crowd- and situation-control tactic in ways that are actually intended to wound or kill. Which would bear on the boarding of these ships rather obviously..

Well, yes, if CT had been arguing that the Isrealis could be trusted to have done everything possible to avoid killing anyone on the flotilla, then it would have a bearing on what he said. I don't think he did. Watser?'s irrelevant comment isn't rendered relevent in this context merely by imagining another context in which it would have been apposite.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is another example of that as is the flotilla raid.

... and if we accept that one was overkill then we must accept every criticism of the other - is that your argument here?

[LadyShea]

The argument is that Israel often overreacts and responds disproportionately, has a history of doing so, and continues to do so.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Well, yes, if CT had been arguing that the Isrealis could be trusted to have done everything possible to avoid killing anyone on the flotilla, then it would have a bearing on what he said. I don't think he did. Watser?'s irrelevant comment isn't rendered relevent in this context merely by imagining another context in which it would have been apposite.

Watser's comment was not a reply to CT and Clutch's "Fucking twit" was not an ad hominem but an insult.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

... the implication here being that none of the conclusions are false because I am a twit. Ah, that ad hom habit is hard to kick, even for you, Clutch!

Or it could be an explicit allusion to a broad IDF practice of applying a theoretically non-lethal or less harmful crowd- and situation-control tactic in ways that are actually intended to wound or kill. Which would bear on the boarding of these ships rather obviously..

Well, yes, if CT had been arguing that the Isrealis could be trusted to have done everything possible to avoid killing anyone on the flotilla, then it would have a bearing on what he said. I don't think he did. Watser?'s irrelevant comment isn't rendered relevent in this context merely by imagining another context in which it would have been apposite.

I guess I read it differently, clutch was saying that you failed to grasp the obvious because you are a fucking twit.

He isn't "saying that you are wrong because you are a fucking twit."

Hes "saying that you are a fucking twit because you are wrong."

Note that while both portions that are in quotes have the exact same words, the order changes their meaning.

[Watser?]

Amazing that people still try to reason with mickthinks.

[chunksmediocrites]

From Juan Cole's blog:

More eyewitness accounts are emerging from released aid activists whom the Israelis had imprisoned.” They corroborate the videotape showing that Israeli forces were firing the deck of the Mavi Marmura before they boarded it. The Israeli forces also broke their own rules of engagement, requiring them to shoot at the legs of resisters. They instead shot humanitarian workers in the face, shoulder and chest. It may be that such violence on the part of Israeli soldiers provoked the attack with sticks on the Israeli commandos as they landed, videotape of which the Israeli army has released.

The Israeli army is sending back home all of the kidnapped aid workers seized on the ships within 48 hours. Initially the Israeli authorities had threatened to imprison for an undisclosed amount of time those who would not sign a Hebrew-language confession. The UNSC condemnation and that of dozens of countries in the world appears to have changed the Israelis’ minds on the issue.

BBC News:

Aris Papadokostopoulos was aboard the Free Mediterranean, travelling behind the Mavi Marmara and carrying mainly Greek and Swedish activists.

"The Turkish ship [the Mavi Marmara] was in front of us... on which there was a terrible raid from the air and from the sea and from everywhere, with shooting.

Mr Papadokostopoulos said that aboard the other boats, commandos beat activists but nobody was gravely injured.

He said no one put up resistance on the Free Mediterranean, which was carrying a cargo of wheelchairs, building material and medical and pharmaceutical aid.

"Some people were hit by clubs and electric shocks. During their interrogation, many of them were badly beaten in front of us," he said.

YouTube- Eyewitness and victim recounts Israeli...

&feature=player_embeddedBBC News again:

For many critics of Israel - on the streets and in foreign ministries - it is not just about this single incident at sea, serious and deadly though it was, says the BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Jerusalem.

It is about a pattern of violent and disproportionate behaviour, with Israel playing to its own rules rather than international law, our correspondent says.

[Watser?]

Huwaid Arraf btw is one of the founders of the International Solidarity Movement, she is an American Palestinian married to an American Jew. They are both very active, I interviewed them when I was over there.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

... the implication here being that none of the conclusions are false because I am a twit.

No, shitforbrains. The implication being that this is one more instance of your being a fucking twit, since you contrived to miss the obvious relevance of Watser?'s point.

Which is why I wrote it in the order I did, and why you had to quote it backwards in order to again contrive to miss the point. Fucking slimy twit.

Well, yes, if CT had been arguing that the Isrealis could be trusted to have done everything possible to avoid killing anyone on the flotilla...

And what if Watser? was commenting in response to LS's post, in which she alluded to the "typical disproportionate response" of the IDF? Do you think he might have flagged this fact by, for example, writing immediately after that post, and by completely failing to quote CT in his post, and by completely failing to say, suggest, implicate, or presuppose the message, "California Tanker, you are wrong to defend the view that the Israelis could be trusted to have done everything possible to avoid killing anyone on the flotilla"? In which case his report would be incandescently relevant to the immediately preceding claim about disproportionate responses by the IDF?

Fucking shameless, slimy twit.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Amazing that people still try to reason with mickthinks.

Point taken. Apologies for enabling.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The argument is that Israel often overreacts and responds disproportionately, has a history of doing so, and continues to do so.

I don't see anyone, least of all CT, suggesting otherwise, so as part of the debate with CT, such an argument is irrelevant.

[Adəm]

Where I come from, we have a story, sort of a parable. Once there was a Southern gentleman of Irish descent who had lost all his slaves in the War of Northern Aggression, so he was digging a hole himself. He had never had to stoop to manual labor before, so he didn't really know much about hole digging. "That's deep enough, Mick!" his neighbors would yell, as he dug deeper and deeper. "Mick, you fool, stop digging!" his wife would holler, as he kept right at it. "Mick, don't you know when to stop digging?" the postman exclaimed, when he could barely see the shovel as it swung upward to toss dirt out of the hole. Finally, the hole was so deep that the poor man had to stretch as far as he could to remove dirt from it, and his tired hand slipped on the shovel, which fell toward him, the blade striking him on the temple.

He survivied, but the doctors had to cut away so much lacerated and infected skin that poor Mick LOST HIS ENTIRE FACE!

[LadyShea]

Mick, we were having a discussion and expressing thoughts and opinions, and pointing out examples that inform those thoughts and opinions. Watser and I saw no need to make it "formal" and I was not actually debating anyone. I didn't even intend to make an argument.

So, my mistake for picking up your term "argument". Here is my revised statement

My point was that Israel often overreacts and responds disproportionately, has a history of doing so, and continues to do so.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

Watser's comment was not a reply to CT

It seems to be from its position in the thread. Who do you think he was taking issue with?

... and Clutch's "Fucking twit" was not an ad hominem but an insult.
You are implying that it can't be both. I think that's a mistake.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was not actually debating anyone. I didn't even intend to make an argument.

So you are not taking issue with anything in CT's posts? I'm sorry, it seemed to me that you were.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It seems to be from its position in the thread. Who do you think he was taking issue with?

Maybe he was just expressing his thoughts and opinions and not taking issue with anyone?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

So you are not taking issue with anything in CT's posts? I'm sorry, it seemed to me that you were.

I said what I wanted to say to CT, quite clearly from my reading. I am just talking, Mick, and others sometimes talk back to me.

This isn't a court case or a formal debate. Just an exchange of ideas.

[livius drusus]

The Economist has an interesting graphic describing some of what is and is not allowable through the blockade:



So ginger bad, black pepper good. Go figure.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

... you contrived to miss the obvious relevance of Watser?'s point.

The relevance you are talking about is to a discussion that LadyShea and CT were not having. That is a kind of irrelevance, and you don't change that by blustering about 'obvious' relevance and calling me a fucking twit because you disagree with me.

And what if Watser? was commenting in response to LS's post, in which she alluded to the "typical disproportionate response" of the IDF?
If Watser? was backing up LS in the issues she was taking with CT, then he was reinforcing a point that was irrelevant to the debate. It's okay for me to point that out, I think.

Mick
No, shitforbrains. fucking twit, Fucking slimy twit. Fucking shameless, slimy twit. Strange! I think you claim to be a college professor, Clutch. You do yourself no favours debating like one of your students.

[Sock Puppet]

And chemical fertilizer and pesticides are allowed while fabrics and coriander are not? WTF?

[Ensign Steve]

Cartons for transporting chicks.

[livius drusus]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can make more bombs with fertilizer than with a bolt of cotton.

[Adam]

The prohibited stuff seems mostly to be stuff that one might use to make a living on one's own, while the permitted stuff seems to be stuff that would keep one dependent upon imports and, thus, beholden to those running the blockade. I.e. no fabric to make clothing, but completed clothing is OK.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said what I wanted to say to CT, quite clearly from my reading.

And what you clearly said took issue with some of what CT had said. Why are you trying to disappear down the cracks between 'saying' and 'taking issue'?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by list

fishing rods, ropes for fishing prohibited, frozen fish permitted

Teach a man to fish and he becomes a terrorist, give him frozen fish and he becomes a peace activist.