Reuters caught doctoring Images (Again) (Flotilla)

[Coyote]

Wasn't Reuters the agency that photoshopped enhanced damage during the Lebanon conflict? And there were accusations that they "staged" damage scenes and dead/wounded/grieving people during that also (like "Blue helmet guy" or something)?

[Stark]

Oh man, we are seriously at the 'it's their fault for going near these violent pirates while tryingbto deliver non-military supplies that will be called weapns with links to OSAMA'.

But it's okay to shoot a guy who breaks into your house.

[MagnusTheReD]

Oh man, we are seriously at the 'it's their fault for going near these violent pirates while tryingbto deliver non-military supplies that will be called weapns with links to OSAMA'.

Haven't we discussed this already, in the previous thread?

The legal basis for this boarding is still rather unclear, but this comment about "violent pirates" is blatantly dishonest, since the commandos weren't the ones who initiated the violence.

Besides, the supplies were delivered to the crossing with Gaza, and Hamas isn't allowing them in...

[Samuel]

Besides, the supplies were delivered to the crossing with Gaza, and Hamas isn't allowing them in...

What is the hold up- afraid Fatah will get their hands on it?

And there were accusations that they "staged" damage scenes and dead/wounded/grieving people during that also (like "Blue helmet guy" or something)?

Aren't those usually staged? I don't think journalists want to be near an area with wounded from collateral damage due to the fact they could easily become part of the news.

Running a military blockade in slow, unarmed vessels without escort is exactly the sort of thing that intelligent people responsibly looking out for their own welfare know better, than to do.

So fast vessels so your enemy opens fire or armed ships... so your enemy opens fire. Maybe you can get enough ships to tie down all the interdicting ships and then it doesn't matter how slow or your lack of escorts.

It can't be had both ways: if you know that what you are doing is dangerous, if you have been forewarned of the risks, then you don't get to claim the status of an abused innocent.

I can hear the blood boiling in IP. You just declared people who commit non-violent resistance can't declare themselves abused innocents. Look, we warned you if we gathered in public we would crack down. It is your fault you didn't listen and we sent in tanks to crush you

Presumably if Arabs ever commit genocide against Israel, it is the jews faults for not listening to the repeated warning about how they are totally going to do that.

Well, how crazy and reckless, then, are the people who put themselves at the mercy of those crazy, lying, etc, etc?

Desperate?

Really, have this many people failed to notice the nexus between the Palestinian cause and the deliberate seeking of self-destruction, to further it?

That is generally what happens when you go up against people who have a massive firepower advantage over you. You die. Unless you are advocating that they should go back to the "try to take as many of them with us" approach stopped by walling off Palestine.

No one with over-room-temperature IQ is going to believe that they can effectively take on professional, well-equipped soldiers with such armament;

Which is why the Israeli forces took zero casulties... oh wait, they did managed to hurt them. And if you hurt Israeli soldiers all you need to do is hold them as captives until you reach Gaza.

[Stark]

We should compare the attitudes to the IDF plainly and baldly lying, misrepresenting, and stirring shit that it's forced to retract on one hand, and to someone cropping an image in a way Israel's cheerleaders don't like.

It's pretty amusing stuff, particularly if the dickless IDF had held it's wad until they crossed into territorial waters they'd be receiving much less attention and their lies might even have worked.

[Ryan Thunder]

People have the right to defend themselves with force against aggression.

Because they'd be in physical danger if they hadn't actively fought the boarding party, right?

[Illuminatus Primus]

People have the right to defend themselves with force against aggression.

Because they'd be in physical danger if they hadn't actively fought the boarding party, right?

Israel's cowboys have never shot civilians, nope, nosiree. We also are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia. They were illegally boarding the ship after pre-emptively firing tear gas at the boats. Yeah, you're right, it was the pole-dudes provocation.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The legal basis for this boarding is still rather unclear, but this comment about "violent pirates" is blatantly dishonest, since the commandos weren't the ones who initiated the violence.

So you promise not to have me arrested if I pre-emptively fire tear gas into your house?

It can't be had both ways: if you know that what you are doing is dangerous, if you have been forewarned of the risks, then you don't get to claim the status of an abused innocent.

I can hear the blood boiling in IP. You just declared people who commit non-violent resistance can't declare themselves abused innocents. Look, we warned you if we gathered in public we would crack down. It is your fault you didn't listen and we sent in tanks to crush you

Presumably if Arabs ever commit genocide against Israel, it is the jews faults for not listening to the repeated warning about how they are totally going to do that.

Its "my slave disobeyed so I lashed him" logic. These people conceive of their role identically to Stalinists. They must reflexively defend power and violence by their Masters, and preserve the Right to Lie.

Its so elementary that people have the right to not be attacked, to not be killed, to not be coerced and conversely that people have the right to resist oppression, violently if need be. And it evaporates in the presence of power that must be cowed to.

We should compare the attitudes to the IDF plainly and baldly lying, misrepresenting, and stirring shit that it's forced to retract on one hand, and to someone cropping an image in a way Israel's cheerleaders don't like.

It's pretty amusing stuff, particularly if the dickless IDF had held it's wad until they crossed into territorial waters they'd be receiving much less attention and their lies might even have worked.

Yeah, its pretty hilarious. I'm glad how you demonstrated how two-face their logic is, when you have Republicans drooling over fantasies of gettin' their guns and shooting nigger..I mean DEA agents (hard to keep track of the fascists' hoped-for victims) if they enter MAH CASTLE, and on the other hand, the protesters should have laid on their bellies and gotten shot -- such is righteous. One wonders if they borrow Clark Kent's telephone booth to swap from G. Gordon Liddy to Mohandas Ghandi so fucking quickly.

[Ryan Thunder]

People have the right to defend themselves with force against aggression.

Because they'd be in physical danger if they hadn't actively fought the boarding party, right?

Israel's cowboys have never shot civilians, nope, nosiree.

Civilians who have not attacked them nor been in proximity to people who have attacked them? Intentionally?

Hey, look, I can get that you don't want the boat to have been boarded in the first place, but this nonsense about fighting off fucking commandos or police is almost always just pure bullshit. You aren't going to get beaten for resisting arrest if you aren't resisting arrest.

We also are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Eh, I never did like that book. Bored me to tears.

They were illegally boarding the ship after pre-emptively firing tear gas at the boats. Yeah, you're right, it was the pole-dudes provocation.

Oh, totally.

Hey you're not up on the news, are you? NATO => Inherently good at all costs, Everybody Else => Evil/wrong no matter what? I still have an uplink to the conservative groupthink network, you see...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Civilians who have not attacked them nor been in proximity to people who have attacked them? Intentionally?

Hey, look, I can get that you don't want the boat to have been boarded in the first place, but this nonsense about fighting off fucking commandos or police is almost always just pure bullshit. You aren't going to get beaten for resisting arrest if you aren't resisting arrest.

You're exactly the kind of assholes who squeal when their logic gets extended to shit like Birmingham, Alabama and probably the cops in your own home state maybe fifty years ago. Barely two generations. For the violent reactionary douchebag, its always just-so that, oh now its unnecessary to ever use the tactics and rationals of liberation. All the fights have been won, trust the state, trust authority, we take care of you.

Failed resistance is still meaningful and noble. Are you claiming that in your doubtlessly jingoistic political background, there's no celebratory praise of even failed "last stands"? Fuck the Alamo, they should have surrendered. Why do we have that church anyway, a monument to stupidity? Its fatuous for you to pretend, regardless if you disagree with their position, that even from their point of view it makes no sense and they have no cause.

Oh, totally.

Hey you're not up on the news, are you? NATO => Inherently good at all costs, Everybody Else => Evil/wrong no matter what? I still have an uplink to the conservative groupthink network, you see...

So you're not going to refute my remark, are you? By any concievable rational, the protesters did not initiate hostilities. But I guess the far-right, as shown above, only believes in shooting ATF agents when they come for your guns.

[Xon]

Israeli's actions & those running the blockade are actually off-topic, this thread is about the dodgy reporting.

Wasn't Reuters the agency that photoshopped enhanced damage during the Lebanon conflict? And there were accusations that they "staged" damage scenes and dead/wounded/grieving people during that also (like "Blue helmet guy" or something)?

Yup. Reuters has a history of dodgy reporting in the middle east.

[Kanastrous]

the protesters should have laid on their bellies and gotten shot -- such is righteous.

I'll ask again: can someone provide coverage of people running any other aid ships into Gaza, getting shot? I have still not found record of the IDF doing worse than taking control of the ship and seeing to it that it put into an Israeli-controlled port.

If people on aid ships had been shot in the past without provocation, then the people on the Marmara can claim a reasonable fear that the commandos would shoot them. If no one has been shot at by Israelis aboard an aid-bearing ship before, then they can't claim any such reasonable fear.

And still no one has bothered to explain how it is that the only ship on which the Israelis shot people, just happens to be the ship where the commandos were themselves attacked while in the process of roping aboard. Does there exist the possibility that if the people aboard Marmara had cooperated - like the people on *all* of the other ships - then they would not have been shot at - like the people on *all* of the other ships?

Failed resistance is still meaningful and noble.

The fact that it can be does not mean that it invariably is.

Israeli's actions & those running the blockade are actually off-topic, this thread is about the dodgy reporting.

You're right. I'll take it back to the earlier thread.

[MagnusTheReD]

They were illegally boarding the ship

You keep repeating this line as if it's a given, even though the legality of the boarding is still highly disputed.
And it looks legal enough as per the San Remo Manual, so I'd like to see your reasoning behind this claim.

after pre-emptively firing tear gas at the boats

Do you have proof for that?
Because there are videos of those guys sitting on the top deck, distributing weapons and preparing for the standoff...

It's pretty amusing stuff, particularly if the dickless IDF had held it's wad until they crossed into territorial waters they'd be receiving much less attention and their lies might even have worked.

Don't you think the people behind this op knew this?
No one ever planned to capture the vessel this early - the objective of the first boarding party was to talk with the people on board and convince them to divert to Ashdod harbor.
But then this whole mess started - the first troops to land got disarmed and captured, so the commanders rushed the takeover in fear of a hostage situation.

[Kanastrous]

No one ever planned to capture the vessel this early - the objective of the first boarding party was to talk with the people on board and convince them to divert to Ashdod harbor.

I find that very difficult to believe.

[Gil Hamilton]

"Previous Israeli behavior?" Have the Israelis shot or killed anybody aboard an aid-for-Gaza ship, in the past? I have been unable to find record of the IDF doing more than boarding and obliging the crew to divert to an Israeli port.

If it's never happened before (can someone find evidence that it has?), then why should the people aboard Marmara have made that assumption? Once again, note that the people on the ships who didn't attack the boarders, didn't get shot at.

Where have you been the last like 60 years? You can't go a month some years without a news story of Israeli soldiers getting into some fight in Gaza or the West Bank or Lebanon where its declared that they killed some terrorists and as it turns out, "some terrorists" means that the Israeli soldiers shot up the wrong thing due to being overagressive. You saying "But... but... they've never shot up a Gaza aid boat specifically!" but who cares? The reputation for the IDF's aggression and hamfistedness doesn't stop when they leave dry land (some knowledgable people on this board have argued that it becomes worse).

If armed Israeli commandos were boarding my ship in the manner they did, yeah, with their reputation I'd look for a blunt object on hand too, because you never know if this is going to be the time some asshole IDF solder decides to get trigger happy. After all, they are already repelling down, unannounced and without permission, and appear to be heavily armed (I doubt the people on the ship knew that they had paintball guns).

This blockade is part of extended action against Gaza and if you believe that Israeli soldiers have never practiced "shoot first, shoot again, and if they turn out to be the wrong people, say they were terrorists", I've got a beach in Tucson to sell you.

Their whole cause revolves around victim-hood. Considering the response that the event has generated, I wouldn't call them 'retarded.' I'd call them darned smart. Retarded would be the belief that in going after trained, combat-equipped troops (well, troops whom you reasonably assume are combat-equipped, anyway) with such weapons, you actually stand any chance of success in driving them off - or in fact accomplishing anything at all, aside from getting wounded or killed..

Really, have this many people failed to notice the nexus between the Palestinian cause and the deliberate seeking of self-destruction, to further it?

OK, provide evidence that this was their mindset. If you are so vehemently asserting that they deliberately only used found items on the ship to defend themselves merely for a photo-op at the cost of their own lives, show it. Otherwise, if you DON'T have evidence, you should probably stop.

It's more than equally likely that the grabbed what they had on hand when the commandos decided to board without permission. That fits the sequence of events alot more than some jokers going "Hey guys, there are some Israeli commandos hovering over! Let's get our found blunt objects and pose for the cameras! See if you can get an Israeli soldier to gut shot you, it always looks good in the Western Media for photos of brown people holding their guts in."

Sure I do.

Well, there is hope there, then.

[MagnusTheReD]

No one ever planned to capture the vessel this early - the objective of the first boarding party was to talk with the people on board and convince them to divert to Ashdod harbor.

I find that very difficult to believe.

Why is that?
Anyway, that's what follows from an interview with one of the injured troops I saw the other day, and it does make sense.
I mean, what possible reason is there behind capturing the ship, like, five hours away from shore if it's sailing in the general direction of your port, anyway

[MagnusTheReD]

OK, provide evidence that this was their mindset.

I don't want do disrupt your debate, but here's some evidence.

It's more than equally likely that the grabbed what they had on hand when the commandos decided to board without permission. That fits the sequence of events alot more than some jokers going "Hey guys, there are some Israeli commandos hovering over! Let's get our found blunt objects and pose for the cameras! See if you can get an Israeli soldier to gut shot you, it always looks good in the Western Media for photos of brown people holding their guts in."

Here.

[CJvR]

Besides, the supplies were delivered to the crossing with Gaza, and Hamas isn't allowing them in...

What is the hold up- afraid Fatah will get their hands on it?

Hamas just taking a play from Little Kim's totalitarian playbook - holding your own people hostage. It seems it was an effort to pressure Israel into releasing the war activists. Since Israel did that rather swiftly anyway, to avoid providing the media with a spectacle that a trial would cause and probably not even noticing Hamas effort to steal a bit of spotlight, it didn't get much attention. Is it still going on?

[Kanastrous]

so...

Israel hates Palestinians and wants them to suffer (per Illuminatus Primus, etc), HAMAS impounds aid for suffering Palestinians, thus increasing their suffering, and this is intended to pressure Israel...how?

[Serafina]

so...

Israel hates Palestinians and wants them to suffer (per Illuminatus Primus, etc), HAMAS impounds aid for suffering Palestinians, thus increasing their suffering, and this is intended to pressure Israel...how?

Quite simple, really.
First, let me say that they (Hamas) might simply do it to reinforce their controll - like North Korea. Especially since they have a convenient scapegoat in Israel, if Hamas actually purposefully holds back supplies.
Now, to the actual question:
Israel get's blamed for the poor conditions in Gaza - not without reason, of course. If Hamas makes the situation worse, they have more propaganda material to throw at Israel.

So, IF Hamas starves it's people purposefully, it gets:
-a less rebellion-happy populace
-it reinforces the hate of it's populace against Israel
-it worsens the international standing of Israel.
A "pretty good deal", if one is immoral enough to do it.

[Kanastrous]

Makes sense, if outside observers are dumb enough to fall for it.

[Serafina]

Makes sense, if outside observers are dumb enough to fall for it.

It is not easy to "observe" Gaza - not in detail, at least.
Getting good evidence for something like this would mean that you have to research the routes the supplies take, who does what with them etc. pp. That's a lot of work even if you live in a democractic, freedom of press first world nation - how much harder is it then in a dictatorship that is pretty well isolated from the rest of the world?

[Coyote]

Makes sense, if outside observers are dumb enough to fall for it.

If you have ready-made brigades of useful idiots out in the world who are willing to accept your propaganda at face value, it works great. It's just media manipulation, and the media loves a good juicy story. In this, no one has a monopoly; countries, groups and movements have bene doing this kind of stuff for generations.

There's always a cause to hang one's hat on, and plenty of people ready to leap at the chance for [insert rationale].

[Stark]

And then there are people who don't knee-jerk first and ask questions later.

[Kanastrous]

Could benefit from a lot fewer of those, on all sides...