Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

jill_valentine wrote: »

Some paintball guns are indeed replicas, but the replica models are uncommon and as far as I know, the ones we're talking about here were the standard ones. Not always an easy distinction to make in the scary helicoptery dark, but still, worth saying.

Yes there are some replica paintball markers but they are extremely rare.

The ones used by the IDF look like a standard painball marker and do not look like a proper fire arm. This is the still from one of the released IDF videos which clearly shows a paintball marker.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Care to back up that claim with some evidence?

I've stated it as an opinion,I don't have to.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

I've stated it as an opinion,I don't have to.

Ah well, you're welcome to that misguided opinion, but if you don't have any evidence to base that on, it would seem to be "evidence" of bias on your behalf.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

selective quoting of my posts doesn't make for good debate.
Go back and read what I was replying to please rather than throwing away the context.I was looking for evidence of fraud.
None proffered yet.
Much wild conjecture though.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm using the term photoshop as a general term for changing what the video shows and not for subtitle/notes added.
So my question was whether the footage was a fraud.
No one has evidence of this that I can verify despite the usual huffing and puffing in a thread like this one.

As you can see Black Briar selective quoting can misrepresent your actual views just as selective editing can change the whole context and time line of any video that has been released by the IDF.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Ah well, you're welcome to that misguided opinion, but if you don't have any evidence to base that on, it would seem to be "evidence" of bias on your behalf.

You're the pot and I'm the kettle then I suppose,if you want to say that about me.
But honestly I'm just as opinionated as you are on the subject ,It's just I'm not taking sides.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

You're the pot and I'm the kettle then I suppose,if you want to say that about me.
But honestly I'm just as opinionated as you are on the subject ,It's just I'm not taking sides.

By claiming that the activists were manipulative without any evidence to back it up would suggest quite strongly that you are, in fact, taking sides, your eager protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

As you can see Black Briar selective quoting can misrepresent your actual views just as selective editing can change the whole context and time line of any video that has been released by the IDF.

Well I take that point.
I've indirectly suggested it even but I'm reserving my opinion[without having seen all footage] except to say I'm not believing for one minute that there were no activists on the flotilla that were looking forward to an incident.

BlaasForRafa

gandalf wrote: »

One thing if he is a member of S13 I would doubt very much that he would bad mouth them to someone outside that sphere as I believe most members of any active military unit would not criticise their comrades.

So basically your friend is saying his superiors made a "dogs bollix" of the planning.

What about his opinion on carrying out the operation in International Waters & at night?

Again because of the whole International Waters issue it can be argued that the people on the boat had a right to defend themselves. I believe they were mistaken as they were taking on troops who are normally used in combat operations like assassinations. Then again a Libyan crew fought back against Somali Pirates and were hailed heroes.

Soldiers are always the first to criticise their superiors, far more so than politicians or home media would. They would do their job but they wouldn't devolve themselves of their critical faculties, special forces tend to be perfectionists and do not particularly appreciate being put in situations without clear orders with the wrong equipment for the job.

They would leave the international waters thing to the IDF lawyers though, its not a soldiers place to start worrying about that.

BlaasForRafa

gandalf wrote: »

And if you read my contributions on this thread I haven't either but my main gripe is the whole question about the operation being illegal in International Waters and the methods used by Israel on the boarding operation like carrying it out at night with special forces commandos who are normally used in combat operations.

Thats a matter for the politicians and senior military commanders though, you can't blame the soldiers for the orders that they were given.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

By claiming that the activists were manipulative without any evidence to back it up would suggest quite strongly that you are, in fact, taking sides, your eager protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's just a belief.
How could I have a bias if I'm displaying opinions that are anti both sides?
That does not compute.
Neither do these recent posts focusing on me rather than the topic at hand.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I take that point.
I've indirectly suggested it even but I'm reserving my opinion[without having seen all footage] except to say I'm not believing for one minute that there were no activists on the flotilla that were looking forward to an incident.

That is open to interpretation. If the protesters accounts are correct and some of their number were killed before the soldiers hit the deck then I can see how they could have been enraged especially as they were in International Waters and they felt that the boarding was illegal.

This whole flotilla was never about making a difference with the aid it carried which was a drop in the ocean of what was needed, it was symbolic. It was designed to highlight an illegal blockade in Gaza that is collectively punishing a whole people.

I am also not denying that Israel has the right to check these ships once they reach the territorial waters that they have responsibility for.

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

That does not compute.
Neither do these recent posts focusing on me rather than the topic at hand.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them wil inevitably be attacked. It's not surprising, the same tactics are being used by "pro Gaza" groups all over the world.

Dar

Deleted User wrote: »

selective quoting of my posts doesn't make for good debate.
Go back and read what I was replying to please rather than throwing away the context.I was looking for evidence of fraud.
None proffered yet.
Much wild conjecture though.

Its now nearly a week since the boarding. Israel is in possession of pretty much all of the footage of the event including their own coverage, ships security cameras and cameras confiscated from the passengers. They've had plenty of time to go over it all (although of course there may be a bit of backlog since their editing team does appear to spend a lot of time drawing circles around pipes, chains and boxes of plates).

Eye witness accounts differ greatly from the Israeli narrative. Assuming then they are all either lying or confused, then there exists footage which will prove them wrong, footage which is in the possession of the IDF. The IDF has not released any such footage.


Taking this into account, I would suggest that any reasonable person can only make one of two conclusions:

Either;

a) The IDF account of events is accurate, but the IDF team reviewing the material has not been able to review all of the footage yet, or even review enough to release some sort of concrete evidence which supports their account;

or b) The IDF account is inaccurate, they are aware that the footage they have contradicts it and are deliberately selecting and releasing short clips which, taken out of context, can be used to support their narrative or at the very least lower the signal-to-noise ratio long enough for this to all blow over.

Iwasfrozen

gandalf wrote: »

This whole flotilla was never about making a difference with the aid it carried which was a drop in the ocean of what was needed, it was symbolic. It was designed to highlight an illegal blockade in Gaza that is collectively punishing a whole people.

It was symbolic alright, these people were trying to break Israeli law by entering a blockade illegaly. Not country would stand for its borders to be breached and one can't blame Israel for defending her own.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

This whole flotilla was never about making a difference with the aid it carried which was a drop in the ocean of what was needed, it was symbolic. It was designed to highlight an illegal blockade in Gaza that is collectively punishing a whole people.

Well it's certainly done that,lets hope some good comes out of it.
Will any of us ever get to the bottom of relationships in that part of the world?
Blockading an entire region such that people are half starving and don't even have a basic medical system is immoral.
It's one reason among many, why I would never visit Israel despite it being a place I'd love to see.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Anyone who doesn't agree with them wil inevitably be attacked. It's not surprising, the same tactics are being used by "pro Gaza" groups all over the world.

Well You might be more familiar with that than I am,but in fairness they're entitled to their views,some of which I'm sympathetic to, but some I think are just plain silly/ott.

gandalf

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was symbolic alright, these people were trying to break Israeli law by entering a blockade illegaly. Not country would stand for its borders to be breached and one can't blame Israel for defending her own.

But they never breached the Israeli borders. Israel did break International Law and boarded the ship in International Waters.

Gandalf,do you know for certain if they did break international law by doing what they did in international waters?
It's just that I've heard them claim that international law allows them the get out clause of boarding if there is a threat to their country [whether this proves real or not].

I'd have to see some sort of determination on that one.
Would they be saying that in the world wide media if they didn't have a leg to stand on?

More egg if it's groundless.

Fuhrer

Deleted User wrote: »

selective quoting of my posts doesn't make for good debate.
Go back and read what I was replying to please rather than throwing away the context.I was looking for evidence of fraud.
None proffered yet.
Much wild conjecture though.

Where were you looking for evidence of Fraud?


When did you mention once Fraud?


And it does make for good debate to selectivly quote your posts. Especially when they offer two complete different views on the exact same thing. Firstly demanding that one person backs his statement with evidence because he cant know for sure then doing a complete 180 and saying that of course its edited.

Iwasfrozen

gandalf wrote: »

But they never breached the Israeli borders. Israel did break International Law and boarded the ship in International Waters.

They may have been in international waters but their intention to break Israeli law was evident. It was better that Israel prevented the incident from happening in the first place rather then waiting untill they actually did break the law.

There is a difference between fact and opinion fuhrer.
Secondly,Clearly changing a video would be fraud.
I've asked for evidence that there was any change made.
I'm willing to accept peoples opinions as opinion [but disagree with them where I do] and have no problem obviously with a vice versa in that regard.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

Gandalf,do you know for certain if they did break international law by doing what they did in international waters?
It's just that I've heard them claim that international law allows them the get out clause of boarding if there is a threat to their country [whether this proves real or not].

I'd have to see some sort of determination on that one.
Would they be saying that in the world wide media if they didn't have a leg to stand on?

More egg if it's groundless.

Well for the blockade to be legal a status of war has to exist with Gaza. I have had Israelis admit on here that one does not. That's what the whole arguement rests on.

I believe that an official status of war doesn't exist between Israel and Gaza because the Israelis do not want to confer PoW status on Hamas captives and be bound by the international law that that status evokes.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Well for the blockade to be legal a status of war has to exist with Gaza. I have had Israelis admit on here that one does not. That's what the whole arguement rests on.

I believe that an official status of war doesn't exist between Israel and Gaza because the Israelis do not want to confer PW status on Hamas captives and be bound by the international law that that status evokes.

I'm not talking about the blockade though.
I'm talking about the specific decision to board that flotilla and the question as to whether they can claim the right to do so under the guise of a threat to Israel.
They appear to be using that as a loophole.
Thats what I'd need a determination on.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not talking about the blockade though.
I'm talking about the specific decision to board that flotilla and the question as to whether they can claim the right to do so under the guise of a threat to Israel.
They appear to be using that as a loophole.
Thats what I'd need a determination on.

But the whole arguement on whether boarding the flotilla is the blockade. The only reason that Israel could have boarded them is if they were breaching a legal blockade. The only other legal reasons to intercept and board a ship on International waters would be piracy or people smuggling.

Otherwise they would have to wait for the flotilla to cross in the waters that they have legal stewardship over. Then they could have legally boarded to their hearts content.

jill_valentine

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not talking about the blockade though.
I'm talking about the specific decision to board that flotilla and the question as to whether they can claim the right to do so under the guise of a threat to Israel.
They appear to be using that as a loophole.
Thats what I'd need a determination on.

That comes back to the legality of the blockade too though, which is the issue. Blockades in themselves can be legal, but only under certain conditions that Israel has not met - if the blockade is not legal, then neither is any enforcement of it, much less one which uses irresponsibly excessive force outside of the blockading country's territory.

Or a threat to their security Gandalf.
Thats the basis I heard one of their spoke persons say.

I'd like to know if that is true.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

Or a threat to their security Gandalf.
Thats the basis I heard one of their spoke persons say.

I'd like to know if that is true.

No a threat to their security is not a valid one. Its their spin on it. The only valid reasons that I have read about are outlined above.

halkar

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They may have been in international waters but their intention to break Israeli law was evident. It was better that Israel prevented the incident from happening in the first place rather then waiting untill they actually did break the law.

Would you support Iran if Iran attack the Israeli submarines close to her coastlines while they are in international waters? It would be better if Iran prevents any incident before these subs put in use.

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

From the article

...Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us...”

Replace Persian Gulf with Gaza, Iranian admiral to Israeli government and evil act to aid convoy.

The world is very twisted.

I'll take your word on that Gandalf [considering I know you :pac:] but I have reservations minus some sort of official determination on it.
Law is a very complicated thing and what I can see happening is they saying that the flotilla carried materials that could be used by enemies of theirs to attack israel.
The cement for the bunkers is the most common one cited.

p.s time for beer folks-good night

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

The cement for the bunkers is the most common one cited.

Or the cement for peoples homes or the cement to repair the hospital. Its cement and unless the residents of Gaza have built a Trebuchet to fling bags over the border it is not a weapon. At the end of the day its cement.

Again there is nothing stopping Israel boarding ships once they hit their territorial waters.

Irlandese

gandalf wrote: »

Actually I have to call you up on that assertion. Paintball guns are not authentic replicas of real guns, they are easily distinguishable as paintball guns and I have seen one on the video realised by the IDF. I have only seen one apparent on all the footage released by the IDF of the troops involved in the Illegal assault.

(airsoft ones are, I know because I am involved in the sport over here in Ireland)

Sorry, away again straight after last post.
Agh....you know airsoft too !
I have been out at HRTA in Swords a few times for fun and practice but never at paintball, so may very well be wrong to give benefit of doubt on that one. (That is of course evasion speak for "made a right bolli@ of that one "
Now have to read the others to see where replies warranted.
No rest for the wicked........