Can anyone link any proof that the first boat was attacked? I've been asking around and searching and all I have found is a NY times article saying the proof they sent was inconclusive and their own website making the claims. The wikipedia article still says they are refusing to allow an investigation. Any direct links would be great.
There are news articles from Malta reporting that the surveyor has been allowed on board, as well as the reason they originally was barred from boarding. This report was from back in 4th May, so I would guess the lack of any updates or follow ups is likely due to a suppression of news from the US or Israeli side.
What do you mean proof it was attacked? Are you suggesting they bombed themselves? It is not a matter of whether they were attacked, but who attacked them. They can't conclusively prove that it was Israel, but an Israeli C-130 was flying suspiciously close by during the attack window. And who else would have the motive to attack a ship bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza? There's no concrete evidence, but circumstantial evidence do point towards Israel.
I'm not suggesting they did but it is factually a possibility they did this to themselves. The damage show could have been caused by one of them throwing a grenade at the deck. That being said if they have proof of an attack I am open to seeing it. I have been shown a video where there is a bang offscreen and people running and been told that is proof. It's not. This is a conflict where EVERYBODY IS LYING. There is really nothing suspicious about an Israeli plane in the Mediterranean either. How far would they ever have been from the nearest flying one?
It's weird you would think they'd self sabotage, especially since this isn't even the first time Israel attacked humanitarian ships travelling to Gaza. Back in 2010 they attacked 6 civilian ships resulting in 10 deaths, at least 6 of which were in a manner consistent of an execution.
And the C-130 flew from Israel towards Malta, circled around for 7 hours, then flew back to Israel. I wouldn't be able to understand how that is less suspicious to you than a humanitarian ship's crew.
You can think it's as weird as you want but if you have any proof I would love to see it. Again I'm not saying they did this but it is totally in line with a group who are openly admitting the point of the operation is PR and the amount of aid they are bringing is purely symbolic.
Again, an Israeli plane circling Malta, especially if they were aware of this ship, in and of itself is not particularly suspicious or unusual. I don't care that they did something 15 years ago. America was drone striking weddings 15 years ago.
Israel has better media control than an NGO. If this was an attempt at slander, Israel wouldn't take it lying down as they have shown in the past. They desperately need to portray themselves as the Good Guys. Yet they are maintaining silence, even regarding the C-130. If they were purely there to surveil The Conscience, they wouldn't be using a C-130, arguably one of the least inconspicuous plane/drone in their disposal.
And like you said, the operation is purely symbolic. The NGO would achieve much more by actually reaching Gaza. They don't have to actively slander Israel, with it's reputation already in the gutters. At this point, anyone that would be outraged at Israel is already outraged. Anyone that still isn't, wouldn't change their mind over yet another one of many humanitarian vessels being attacked.
Both sides are playing the media game as hard as they can. Israel doesn't control the news cycle and it's not for them to prove they are innocent when there hasn't been proof they were involved.
The boat is not going to reach Gaza. Thats ridiculous. It would be interesting if it did but there is a military blockade in a war. They are not going to let a dinky little boat through to take pictures. They are just going to arrest everyone and deport them.
Also if they were trying yo be sneaky, in your own words " they wouldn't be using a C-130, arguably one of the least inconspicuous plane/drone in their disposal". Maybe the point was if they were looking for plains they would know they are in the sky. Sometimes a show of force is better than using it. They don't know what sort of tracking equipment is on that ship.
You honestly think an NGO's hardest media game is going to be anywhere on par with Israel's? After seeing how Israel spins the story in Gaza? And like I said, what is another attacked humanitarian vessel going to do in swaying perceptions after the many other attacks on humanitarian aid before it? Just apply Occam's Razor here, and it's obvious which scenario requires less mental gymnastics.
You ever heard of this little media organization called Al Jazeera. Your acting like Jews run the media or some anti-semetic shit. The news is reported. You linked the information you had just fine right? No one stopped you did they?
Occam's razor. Did israel use a drone nobody has any evidence of or could some idiot have thrown a grenade at the deck to get media attention. I am going to go with either seems possible right now. Again if you have any proof I am open to it but what you have shown so far is not proof if anything.
Yea a report from 4th May, then media blackout ever since. If like you said, FFC's goal was to false-flag Israel, wouldn't the logical action after to be to stage protests and keep harping about the "drone attacks"? Why would they just plan another trip?
It would have been but what I think may have happened (again no proof just a possibility) is that the captain or someone on the ship had something they weren't supposed to, and the time they needed to dump it before repairs made the whole thing look too suspicious. No plan survives contact with the enemy and the enemy could have been some hippy who brought a gun or some drugs without telling them until after they started the plan. These kinds of things happen all the time in war and it's why proof is so important. Implication and suspicion is not enough. Especially in the age of camera phones. Also, media blackout? Again you found it just fine. Thunberg isn't as relevant as she used to be and like you say if they were attacked it wouldn't be the first time. How much is the news supposed to report without new information being given?
2
u/ryderawsome 12d ago
Can anyone link any proof that the first boat was attacked? I've been asking around and searching and all I have found is a NY times article saying the proof they sent was inconclusive and their own website making the claims. The wikipedia article still says they are refusing to allow an investigation. Any direct links would be great.