ellal";p="1632689 said:nah, you added 2+2 and made 5 as usual...
I like that little extra, it all adds up![]()
Ah, so your post was 'pointless' - how many of yours does that make...![]()
![]()
Still considerably less than yours
Edit: whats with the quotes![]()

ellal";p="1632689 said:nah, you added 2+2 and made 5 as usual...
I like that little extra, it all adds up![]()
Ah, so your post was 'pointless' - how many of yours does that make...![]()
![]()
Still considerably less than yours
Edit: whats with the quotes![]()

The Israelis did not board with the intention of killing people did they?
Did they? I don't know, do you?
Ok, they may have decided to kill people on one of the vessels however implausible.
or did they open fire once it became clear they were likely to be killed.
Likely to be killed?
You did watch the video? you have read they asked for permission to open fire?.
if the blockade is legal the crew and passengers were legally obliged to comply with orders given them by Israel.
IF. But what has that to do with them boarding the boat in international waters?
Not been reading this thread then? If the blockade is legal then the Israelis can board any vessel anywhere attempting to break the blockade.
But yet again, Israel has reacted to calculated provocation with crude and excessive force and found itself in the dock at the court of world public opinion. The real winners are the proclaimed victims – not victims at all except those killed, mostly Turkish citizens. The losers are the ostensibly powerful: Israel. Suckered again, guys ...
All thanks to elleltaken from here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jun/02/gaza-flotilla-attack-michael-white[/QUOTE]
Not my username, or my link - didn't you notice...![]()
Your point is (again...)?
All thanks to elleltaken from here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jun/02/gaza-flotilla-attack-michael-white[/QUOTE]
Not my username, or my link - didn't you notice...![]()
Your point is (again...)?
I didn't think you'd notice that little slip![]()
The link came as a result of one of yours, hence the thanks.
The link came as a result of one of yours, hence the thanks.
The link came as a result of one of yours, hence the thanks.
1. can't you find your own links?
2. can't you find anything better to quote than a ruminating blog?
So here's something a bit more substantial as to why the blockade is being challenged...![]()
Linky
...where is it....anyone seen it? anyone....The smallest violin in the world?
Oh here it is, *plays romeo and juliet theme while imagining Terrorist supporters going without Xboxes. *
![]()
True...Anything that keeps me away from the paperwork I'm supposed to be doing
is a welcome distraction![]()
Five of the six ships are commandeered swiftly with few injuries, although activists voice outrage at their treatment.
But on the Mavi Marmara, things go wrong.
those in the other ships saw the Israeli thugs/terrorists in action first
Yeah, yeah - heard that all beforeI am desperately seeking the news article that said about the order of ships, but that doesn't seem to be the focus in the articles anymore.
Do you really need to ask?Aside from that comment what else is it that you don't believe?
This would suggest to me that the other ships didn't only comply after seeing what happened to the Mavi like you suggested.

This would suggest to me that the other ships didn't only comply after seeing what happened to the Mavi like you suggested.
1. it actually says nothing of the sort, you are just supposing it does, as you've 'suggested' here...
2. where is the 'undisputed' claim - I've showed you dissenting versions, so how is this article 'undisputed'?
When you've found that 'original' article that states that all parties agree on the timeline, then I'll retract...
Until then (and it won't happen) stop spouting bullsh*t...![]()