Just to add: it wasn't simply an arbitrary attack--Israel and Egypt are maintaining a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip ever since Hamas took control of the region. Israel allows some degree of humanitarian aid to pass through the blockade, but only after inspection (to ensure they aren't carrying weapons to Hamas). The flotilla refused to be boarded and inspected by the IDF.
EDIT: It also appears that, after the IDF tows the flotilla to port in Israel and deports everyone aboard, they're going to inspect the cargo and send it to Gaza anyway.
"The flotilla refused to be boarded and inspected by the IDF." er source? because the people on the flotilla are saying they had no problem with inspections. It seems you're justifying the murder of civilians in international waters.
My own opinions are irrelevant--the flotilla didn't comply with the IDF's instructions and instead attempted to run the blockade; the IDF boarded the ships and had them towed to an Israeli port. Both sides accuse the other of initiating violence, with reports that the flotilla passengers attacked the troops and tried to grab for their weapons. The IDF also seems to be claiming to have discovered weapons aboard the flotilla.
So you have one side possibly murdering civilians in international waters, or possibly maintaining in conjunction with one of its neighbors a blockade in order to protect their own people from the terrorists who control Gaza; you have another side openly defying this blockade and intentionally running it just to create this kind of confrontation in the name of civil disobedience. Does it still sound like I'm "justifying" one side over the other? This blockade has been up for three years and the full context behind today's events stretches back to decades of conflict; it's difficult to give an impartial account of things. I only ask that you take my attempts in good faith and add whatever information you have in similar good faith, instead of just collapsing everything down to "IDF are murderers and Phil is justifying it".
Because this is a very, very, very big deal. Let me be clear: It's a big fucking deal. It's huge.
It was attacked in international waters. On board were a Nobel Peace Prize Laurette, a Swedish MP and three German MPs (members of parliament/congress). No one yet knows the fallout of this, but here in Europe, no one can talk about anything else.
Is there a precedent of Twitter censoring "Big Deal" words before? IIRC @ev actually recommended Al Jazeera's Gaza Twitter feed during last year's escalation there.
If anything, it's a case study in how conspiracy theories grow: Every Twitter user is familiar with these type of issues. However in this case Israel is involved, which gave rise to various suspicions of "censorship". When some people then reported the search working fine for them, the theory grew a "location-dependent" subtheory, and users were "reporting" blocked/unblocked per their location. No doubt, a month from now significant parts of the Internet will be referring to the "flotilla censorship" as a known fact.
Comments
Forgive me, but ... what's the relevance of that word? Isn't a flotilla just a bunch of ships? Why would Twitter censor it?
Israeli IDF shot at and attacked a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip a few hours ago through international waters.
EDIT: Differing reports as to casualties: ranging from 0 to 30 dead.
Just to add: it wasn't simply an arbitrary attack--Israel and Egypt are maintaining a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip ever since Hamas took control of the region. Israel allows some degree of humanitarian aid to pass through the blockade, but only after inspection (to ensure they aren't carrying weapons to Hamas). The flotilla refused to be boarded and inspected by the IDF.
EDIT: It also appears that, after the IDF tows the flotilla to port in Israel and deports everyone aboard, they're going to inspect the cargo and send it to Gaza anyway.
"The flotilla refused to be boarded and inspected by the IDF." er source? because the people on the flotilla are saying they had no problem with inspections. It seems you're justifying the murder of civilians in international waters.
My own opinions are irrelevant--the flotilla didn't comply with the IDF's instructions and instead attempted to run the blockade; the IDF boarded the ships and had them towed to an Israeli port. Both sides accuse the other of initiating violence, with reports that the flotilla passengers attacked the troops and tried to grab for their weapons. The IDF also seems to be claiming to have discovered weapons aboard the flotilla.
So you have one side possibly murdering civilians in international waters, or possibly maintaining in conjunction with one of its neighbors a blockade in order to protect their own people from the terrorists who control Gaza; you have another side openly defying this blockade and intentionally running it just to create this kind of confrontation in the name of civil disobedience. Does it still sound like I'm "justifying" one side over the other? This blockade has been up for three years and the full context behind today's events stretches back to decades of conflict; it's difficult to give an impartial account of things. I only ask that you take my attempts in good faith and add whatever information you have in similar good faith, instead of just collapsing everything down to "IDF are murderers and Phil is justifying it".
You are right
At least 10 dead according to Israel Defense Forces
So why would Twitter censor the word?
There was a rumor they were because it wasn't showing up on the trending topics list despite it being a very trending topic.
Because this is a very, very, very big deal. Let me be clear: It's a big fucking deal. It's huge.
It was attacked in international waters. On board were a Nobel Peace Prize Laurette, a Swedish MP and three German MPs (members of parliament/congress). No one yet knows the fallout of this, but here in Europe, no one can talk about anything else.
Is there a precedent of Twitter censoring "Big Deal" words before? IIRC @ev actually recommended Al Jazeera's Gaza Twitter feed during last year's escalation there.
If anything, it's a case study in how conspiracy theories grow: Every Twitter user is familiar with these type of issues. However in this case Israel is involved, which gave rise to various suspicions of "censorship". When some people then reported the search working fine for them, the theory grew a "location-dependent" subtheory, and users were "reporting" blocked/unblocked per their location. No doubt, a month from now significant parts of the Internet will be referring to the "flotilla censorship" as a known fact.