In its first report, submitted in September 2010, the UN fact-finding mission found that the IDF broke international law, and that there was evidence sufficient to initiate prosecutions for breaches of the Geneva Convention. The report stated that: "The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence," The report stated: "There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health". or in pilgers words that warranted persecution [sic] for war crimes" or as it states above and that there was evidence sufficient to initiate prosecutions for breaches of the Geneva Convention.
I'm pretty sure you had a go at people before for getting info from anything other than the direct source. Is this contradiction day for you?
Wrong Jacky, the first report started gathering evidence a month after the events and interviewed only the Turks, it was a Whitewash which simply lay all the blame at Israel's door. Are you still sticking to the story that the Flotilla was purely peaceful in intent? What "aid" supplies were aboard the Mavi Marmara? WHich other ships in the Flotilla saw people killed by the IDF? These are the sort questions which the first report failed to ask.
Have you been reading this thread? Where is the evidence that Iran would use them. That is an assumption you are making after being drip fed misquotes and lies by the media.
The palmer report or 'second report' said the following too the report made significant criticisms of the operation. The use of force is described as excessive. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.” The later treatment of captured protestors was also found to be unreasonable you will also deny that the report was postponed due to israels request and that the summary is 1. The use of force by Israeli defense forces during the raid was unnecessary and disproportionate. This could have been avoided, but Israeli forces chose not to. 2. It would be appropriate for Israel to pay some sort of compensation to the families of those who were killed during the raid. 3. Israel should also issue a statement of regret over the incident.
so why did the 30 countries out of 47 believe it? only 2 didnt america being the main opponent also there was condemnation from the international journalists whose stuff was taken by the israelis and only selective stuff shown. One female journalist apparently got stuff through in her underwear,
Leader of Iran on tv threatend Israel Egypt still sore over 6 day war now have majority Muslim brotherhood in leadership contest Jordan want back lost territory Lebanon spoil for a fight Syria....look what they do to their own Yeah Israel would be safe
And that report has now been superceded by a "Full" report published in June 2011 which actually got the Israelis' side of the story. Doubtless you and Jacky will argue the Israeli side of the story was not required and/or all lies. Do you believe a one sided report where only the Turks gave their version of events which has been shown to be packed full of lies?
So you support the illegal operation and execution of innocents then. What do you mean by peaceful. If they came over with heavy guns and artillery with intent to launch a naval assault well then they would deserve everything they get but they did not. They were obviously going to be testing the blockade but does that automatically mean it was not peaceful/ Surely it only deserves an arrest, the killing of the 9 people was undeniably done in an act of "we'll show them" cold blood. You know it yourself and your picking at small details to try and justify your point. Running a blockade does not excuse the killing of innocents. And seriously what "organised" violence could a big tough group of special ops forces have run into? A bit of jostling was probably about the height of it. Iv broken up worse fights in bars iv worked at id say. Aid aboard the boat was the aid that was needed most, the stuff that Israel wasnt allowing in i.e. concrete and construction materials, (no weapons)
Or perhaps your source could be wrong as it comes from a pro-Iranian source. The source I used actually stated that official figures were very hard to come by, and were thought to be anything from 11,000 to 40,000. However, which ever figure is closest to the truth, they are both far less than the 100,000 plus that resided there pre-1979. The one thing that should not be disputed (and I have studied this in depth), is that all non-Muslim groups, as well as Muslims who have failed to adhere to Iran's Draconian interpretation of Islamic law, have faced persecution. Going back to the OP: this is relevant to the original question, because it is my opinion that a regime that will allow its citizens to be tortured and killed for accusations of adultry; a regime that has courts of law that will always take the word of a Muslim before a non-Muslim regardless of the circumstances; a regime that has laws that will always take the word of a man before a woman and a regime that doesn't allow any form of academic dissent, will be more likely to use nuclear weapons against perceived enemies.
Most of the countries are not real countries, only created by the colonists to divide the people there, ironic those same people created the Zionist state.
You don't know that the "peaceful" folks aboard the Mavi Marmara took 3 IDF soldiers hostage before the shooting started then? ps THERE WERE NO AID SUPPLIES ABOARD THE MAVI MARMARA It's in the report.
we will negate Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan right now as they are not part of the debate. They will not be getting nuclear weapons any time soon and they have their own problems to deal with at the moment, Israel is the least of their concerns. Where did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten Israel on TV? Is this the "wipe them off the map" incident again which has been shown several times over the course of the thread to be a complete and malicious misquote?
Took three hostage aboard a wee boat you really are a fool. Try and cut through the bullshit language and actually picture the scene. it was a slight scuffle and these "hostages" were probably a couple of soldiers who were wrestled and pinned to the groud, again nothing you wont see in your average bar scuffle. Am I to take an MP5k into a bar everytime I go out and say I encountered organised violence against me and waas justified in using it?
No this is actually good debate, threads like the up the arse corner or half the muck written on here every day are pointless articles
I meant in a different sense. But compared to the other dog sh...it articles on here, it's fu...cking world class
superceded? i know israel tried to get the USA to stop the first report and tried to do its own. The second report ( i am assuming you mean the palmer lead one) did not supercede, it was clearly done to 'pacify' the US and in effect Israel here is how things transpired On 31 May Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu asked US President Barack Obama to veto any UN Security Council condemnation of Israel, but the president refused. At the UN Security Council, the US did however block demands for an international inquiry into the raid (similar to Richard Goldstone's inquiry into the Gaza war) and the criticism of Israel for allegedly violating international law, as proposed by Turkey, Palestine and Arab nations. Later the UN stated that Israel used excessive force and boarded the flotilla when it was far away from the blockade zone. In July 2011, the UN investigative committee said that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was legal, but that Israel used excessive force and should have waited to enforce the blockade closer to the shoreline. It also concluded that Turkey should have taken action to try to prevent the flotilla from taking place.
