Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

alastair

We can do without the scare quotes on activists - what else would they be?

Oh and I suspect you don't have a baldy notion what the expectations of the activists would have been in that boarding situation.

Clawdeeus

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay, so the Israelis confiscated all the video and photographic evidence of the attack in which they shot 45 people on an aid ship in international waters and killed at least 9 people and refuse to release this to an independent authority.

Then they held these people incommunicado for three days and enforced a "communications blackout."

Meanwhile, they released video that is edited heavily in order to support their point of view, and have made outlandish claims (eg sophisticated weapons, members of flotilla are linked to terror organisations) that have been thoroughly debunked.

And finally, they refuse to allow an independent investigation into the incident (I haven't yet seen ONE person who was on the flotilla saying they aren't in favour of an independent investigation to establish the truth).

So really, even completely ignoring the IDF's past reputation in such matters, what exactly do YOU think a fair minded person should infer from the above?

Perhaps if the aid workers were as opposed to the idea of an open and impartial investigation of events as the IDF seem to be we would be more inclined to wonder about their honesty in the affair. As it stands, only ONE side seems like it has anything to hide.

Another example of my point; to everyone that has extremly strong opinions of the subject any questioning of their side is seen as unconditional support of the other.

Please read my posts before you go on a rant next time.

I never said the IDF should be trusted in everything they said, I said that trusting unconditionally everything the activists say is also ridiculous to.

I also never said they should both be looked at with the same degree of skepticism.

That does not mean Ill belive everything the activists say straight away either, for the obvious reason that they feel so strongly about the issue; of course they will be tempted to spin. They might not even be lying; I know that if I was shot at/ saw my friends shot I would have a very 1 dimensional view of a situation.

Some of the witness testimony can be discounted, because it makes no sense. For example that two people were shot before the boarding began. No military force is stupid enough to shoot two people, then rappel into their waiting (now furious) friends one at a time.

Its nothing to do with fairness, its to do with logic.

I dont think we will ever know what really happened, now that Israel has refused an International investigation. That does not mean one sides story at the moment HAS to be the correct one.

And what I would infer from the blackout is obvious; that the Israelis have something to hide. Again, that does not instantly lead to the veracity of all the activists claims.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't buy that logic. If anyone knows anything about the IDF, and these "agitators" would surely know a LOT about the IDF, its that if push comes to shove and they are attacked they will use determined force, especially if their comrades are captured or their life is in danger. Taking a chance that the IDF would just give in or fall back in such a circumstance is crazy.

It may have been "brave" or "righteous" in the eyes of the "activists" but attacking the Commandos like that was either stupid or a calculating act of martyrdom.

There's nothing crazy about reckoning you might be able to repel a boarding attempt - there's a quite definite defensive advantage, usually a limited number of boarders, and even the best soldier is sometimes loath to be sent swimming as he attempts to board a moving ship.

The main danger was the commandos being dropped from the choppers, and they were, as we've seen, vulnerable to being individually captured. The guys in the boats could be held off with long poles, with the ship's side providing both protection and an obstacle in exactly the same way as any other defensive wall.

Obviously, it wasn't guaranteed to work, but it wasn't either crazy or a calculating act of martyrdom by any means - it was a brave and reasonably well thought out attempt to repel an assault aimed at capturing the ship. In the end, it didn't work out as either side hoped - as they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Another example of my point; to everyone that has extremly strong opinions of the subject any questioning of their side is seen as unconditional support of the other.

Please read my posts before you go on a rant next time.

I never said the IDF should be trusted in everything they said, I said that trusting unconditionally everything the activists say is also ridiculous to.

I also never said they should both be looked at with the same degree of skepticism.

That does not mean Ill belive everything the activists say straight away either, for the obvious reason that they feel so strongly about the issue; of course they will be tempted to spin. They might not even be lying; I know that if I was shot at/ saw my friends shot I would have a very 1 dimensional view of a situation.

Undoubtedly so.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Some of the witness testimony can be discounted, because it makes no sense. For example that two people were shot before the boarding began. No military force is stupid enough to shoot two people, then rappel into their waiting (now furious) friends one at a time.

Its nothing to do with fairness, its to do with logic.

To be fair, that's not logic - shooting a couple of people in a group may cow the rest, or at least give you more time. Sure, they'll be furious in a few minutes time, but most people's immediate response is shock rather than fury.

Clawdeeus wrote: »

I dont think we will ever know what really happened, now that Israel has refused an International investigation. That does not mean one sides story at the moment HAS to be the correct one.

And what I would infer from the blackout is obvious; that the Israelis have something to hide. Again, that does not instantly lead to the veracity of all the activists claims.

True enough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

droidus

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Another example of my point; to everyone that has extremly strong opinions of the subject any questioning of their side is seen as unconditional support of the other.

Please read my posts before you go on a rant next time.

I never said the IDF should be trusted in everything they said, I said that trusting unconditionally everything the activists say is also ridiculous to.

I also never said they should both be looked at with the same degree of skepticism.

That does not mean Ill belive everything the activists say straight away either, for the obvious reason that they feel so strongly about the issue; of course they will be tempted to spin. They might not even be lying; I know that if I was shot at/ saw my friends shot I would have a very 1 dimensional view of a situation.

Some of the witness testimony can be discounted, because it makes no sense. For example that two people were shot before the boarding began. No military force is stupid enough to shoot two people, then rappel into their waiting (now furious) friends one at a time.

Its nothing to do with fairness, its to do with logic.

I dont think we will ever know what really happened, now that Israel has refused an International investigation. That does not mean one sides story at the moment HAS to be the correct one.

And what I would infer from the blackout is obvious; that the Israelis have something to hide. Again, that does not instantly lead to the veracity of all the activists claims.

This is actually all pretty fair and is one of the reasons why refugee accounts are regarded as unreliable by NGO's until cooberated.

That said, on the balance of probability, I would give far more credence to the witness accounts accounts over anything the IDF says.

Baron Munchausan has more credibility.

BluePlanet

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Some of the witness testimony can be discounted, because it makes no sense. For example that two people were shot before the boarding began. No military force is stupid enough to shoot two people, then rappel into their waiting (now furious) friends one at a time.

Is that the best example you have regarding debunking a crew member's version of events?
It's a poor example as multiple crew members have claimed this.

I disagree with your rationalisation.
The IDF have proven their stupidity already in this affair.

I also believe that by shooting people from the helicopter they are creating phyisical space for a rappel, and also instilling fear, making some crew think twice about what they are doing. It's one thing confronting an invading army that's yielding paint guns, but it's quite another thing when they are shooting live rounds, particularly when your side don't have any.

Clawdeeus

BluePlanet wrote: »

Is that the best example you have regarding debunking a crew member's version of events?
It's a poor example as multiple crew members have claimed this.

I disagree with your rationalisation.
The IDF have proven their stupidity already in this affair.

I also believe that by shooting people from the helicopter they are creating phyisical space for a rappel, and also instilling fear, making some crew think twice about what they are doing. It's one thing confronting an invading army that's yielding paint guns, but it's quite another thing when they are shooting live rounds, particularly when your side don't have any.

It may be a poor example, I just tought of it off the top of my head, as it struck me as obvious when I read an account the other day.

But the general point stands.

You may believe that series of events. I do not. They did act stupidly during the assualt, dont think anyone will deny that. To believe they always will is clear argument ad hominem. And why shoot only 2 from the helicopter? Why not 4, 5 or 10 when the crowd didnt disperse? No point arguing this, there is no way to prove one way or another.

BlaasForRafa

BluePlanet wrote: »

Is that the best example you have regarding debunking a crew member's version of events?
It's a poor example as multiple crew members have claimed this.

I disagree with your rationalisation.
The IDF have proven their stupidity already in this affair.

I also believe that by shooting people from the helicopter they are creating phyisical space for a rappel, and also instilling fear, making some crew think twice about what they are doing. It's one thing confronting an invading army that's yielding paint guns, but it's quite another thing when they are shooting live rounds, particularly when your side don't have any.

He's used logic which you obviously haven't. If the Israelis wanted to "create physical space" they would have gone in with Tavors and done it the easy way.

They didn't, they tried a "soft" approach with paintball and beanbag guns but were met with a mob with iron bars and clubs. It was only after this that they started shooting, after they had been attacked and after some of their comrades had been captured.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously, it wasn't guaranteed to work, but it wasn't either crazy or a calculating act of martyrdom by any means - it was a brave and reasonably well thought out attempt to repel an assault aimed at capturing the ship. In the end, it didn't work out as either side hoped - as they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

regards,
Scofflaw

It may have been brave or reasonably well thought out but it was still pretty stupid as the casualty figures indicate. Several injured commandos versus several dead agitators.

It may have been several dead commandos if they hadn't fired but surely the agitators couldn't have thought that if they attacked the idf with iron bars that they'd just take it or withdraw, if they did think that then its a massive error in judgement bordering on stupid/crazy.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let me put it to you like this - Israel wanted something out of the assault, yes? My own view is that they were trying to deal with a PR issue by way of a surgical military strike that would have seen the boats quietly heading to Ashdod under Israeli control, but it's not really relevant - the point is that Israel wanted something out of the assault, something that could be achieved by taking over the flotilla.

Now, what Israel wanted out of the assault was almost certainly not going to be what the flotilla wanted.

Therefore, ideally, the flotilla should prevent Israel from taking over the flotilla.

In that case, if the flotilla can repel attempts to board, then they will have prevented Israel from achieving whatever her goal might be.

While the activists on board the vessel were aware that an assault was about to happen, there's no reason they would have known it was going to be carried out by an elite Israeli army unit - it might have been carried out by ordinary IDF, by armed sailors, whatever, and it might have been carried out with less than lethal force.

Even if carried out by marines / commandos, there's still a chance that if the first attack is beaten off, and the soldiers prevented from taking over the vessel, that a round of military head-scratching will follow, buying time for the flotilla to get further along their route, maybe get information out there.

Now, probably if the activists had known that the assault would be carried out by elite commandos, and that it would involve lethal force by armed soldiers against unarmed civilians, they might not have chosen to try to repel the boarders. If they did not know that - and there's no reason why they should have done - their decision to try to resist the assault was perfectly reasonable, as well as quite legitimate.

I take those points except I'd describe thinking any resistance to the IDF in whatever unit they came as foolhardy and bound to be messy.

The presence or absence of "agitators" is pretty much irrelevant, since the defence couldn't have happened without the assault, and would have been perfectly reasonable whether any "agitators" were on board or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I actually don't regard it as irrelevant at all to be honest with you.If there are agitators on board,then at the very least you are going to have an urge towards conflict from both sides as opposed to just one.

I have time for a lot of the people I'd know as genuine peace activists on that flotilla and the irish boat,
But I'm wondering whether prior to the first IDF assault on the flotilla,did say the likes of Mairead corrigan actually think that their boat was going to get through and where did they guess they'd actually eventually end up.

They couldn't have been thinking that they would be let through.

The mind boggles of course as to Israeli government thinking other than same old same old.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It may have been brave or reasonably well thought out but it was still pretty stupid as the casualty figures indicate. Several injured commandos versus several dead agitators.

It may have been several dead commandos if they hadn't fired but surely the agitators couldn't have thought that if they attacked the idf with iron bars that they'd just take it or withdraw, if they did think that then its a massive error in judgement bordering on stupid/crazy.

1. there are no IDF dead whatsoever, even though given the capture of three commandos shows it was possible.

2. why would Turks have experience of wrong end of the IDF?

Also, it begins to look increasingly probable that the bullet wounds suffered by the IDF were 'friendly fire'.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

He's used logic which you obviously haven't. If the Israelis wanted to "create physical space" they would have gone in with Tavors and done it the easy way.

They didn't, they tried a "soft" approach with paintball and beanbag guns but were met with a mob with iron bars and clubs. It was only after this that they started shooting, after they had been attacked and after some of their comrades had been captured.

Thing is, you see, that's disputed. Israel has sufficient video of the incident to demonstrate its truth if it is true - why have they not released the proof that it was as you say?

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

I take those points except I'd describe thinking any resistance to the IDF in whatever unit they came as foolhardy and bound to be messy.

People fight the IDF armed with no more than stones.

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually don't regard it as irrelevant at all to be honest with you.If there are agitators on board,then at the very least you are going to have an urge towards conflict from both sides as opposed to just one.

Only one side can start that conflict, unless you can think of a way for unarmed ships and activists to assault Israeli naval vessels and helicopters.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have time for a lot of the people I'd know as genuine peace activists on that flotilla and the irish boat,
But I'm wondering whether prior to the first IDF assault on the flotilla,did say the likes of Mairead corrigan actually think that their boat was going to get through and where did they guess they'd actually eventually end up.

They couldn't have been thinking that they would be let through.

The mind boggles of course as to Israeli government thinking other than same old same old.

The activists had some reason for thinking that they might be let through, and certainly there's no particular reason why they should expect to be assaulted:

BBC wrote:

Some previous flotillas have been allowed to reach Gaza, others have been turned round and sent back. It is not clear why this one was greeted by a commando-style raid. It may have been because of the size of the largest boat, the Mavi Marmara carrying nearly 600 passengers, which made it difficult to board by pulling up alongside.

Source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BluePlanet

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

He's used logic which you obviously haven't. If the Israelis wanted to "create physical space" they would have gone in with Tavors and done it the easy way.

They didn't, they tried a "soft" approach with paintball and beanbag guns but were met with a mob with iron bars and clubs. It was only after this that they started shooting, after they had been attacked and after some of their comrades had been captured.

It's a bizarre version of events you've got.
Israeli commandos storm a civilian ship in international waters and you claim it was they that were attacked?

Run_to_da_hills

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's a bizarre version of events you've got.
Israeli commandos storm a civilian ship in international waters and you claim it was they that were attacked?

This seems to be the normal for the apologists view.

correspondence tapes between the bridge and IDF included.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

People fight the IDF armed with no more than stones.

On a boarded boat,by such a powerfull force on this occasion that would be foolhardy,I think.

Only one side can start that conflict, unless you can think of a way for unarmed ships and activists to assault Israeli naval vessels and helicopters.

In fairness now,I'm referring to what is a peacefull protest in reaction to a boarding by some countries forces,thats sitting down like on the irish boat.
A boarding armed or not isn't conflict,it's enforcement,the entitlement to carry out that enforcement is different matter.

The activists had some reason for thinking that they might be let through, and certainly there's no particular reason why they should expect to be assaulted:

Source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Probably a 20% or less chance then.I didn't know actually they had let any in at all-hence my wondering what they might have been expecting.

Byron85

There seems to be no end to the heating up of things.

Israeli General Dayan: “If the Turkish prime minister joins such a flotilla, we should make clear beforehand this would be an act of war, and we would not try to take over the ship he was on, but would sink it.”

http://www.alalam-news.com/English/detail.aspx?id=105865

I would have thought the fact that Israeli commandos murdered Turkish citizens in international waters would have been an act of war. Then again, what do I know.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

On a boarded boat,by such a powerfull force on this occasion that would be foolhardy,I think.

Well, yes, they're Turks, though...

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness now,I'm referring to what is a peacefull protest in reaction to a boarding by some countries forces,thats sitting down like on the irish boat.
A boarding armed or not isn't conflict,it's enforcement,the entitlement to carry out that enforcement is different matter.

And a boarding is somewhat different from an assault. If the activists had attacked a boarding party coming on board in broad daylight, that would have put a different complexion on the matter.

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably a 20% or less chance then.I didn't know actually they had let any in at all-hence my wondering what they might have been expecting.

There seems to be an element of "not many people know that" - which suggests that previous convoys have not had much media impact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

There seems to be no end to the heating up of things.

Israeli General Dayan: “If the Turkish prime minister joins such a flotilla, we should make clear beforehand this would be an act of war, and we would not try to take over the ship he was on, but would sink it.”

http://www.alalam-news.com/English/detail.aspx?id=105865

What the Hell? Is that just posturing to make the Turks back down, or are they serious?

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

I would have thought the fact that Israeli commandos murdered Turkish citizens in international waters would have been an act of war. Then again, what do I know.

No, that one's optional, and can be smoothed over as many such incidents have been.

If both the Turks and the Israelis are serious - and they're both pretty serious about such things - this is so unlikely to end well...

perturbed,
Scofflaw

gandalf

TBH someone in the Israeli Government needs to rein in all these manics from making statements like this. They need one voice and it needs to be a voice of reason. Having some experience of the mentality of people from this side of the world this could end up being a shooting war because of some very loose words.

And before I get jumped on for being anti-Israeli or a Jew hater I mean on all sides. Trash talking is one thing if its two individuals doing it. When its two countries with large well armed military forces then we are heading for a very dangerous situation that will pale the Gaza hardship a hundred fold if it is allowed to escalate.

And that's not even considering if a conflict goes nuclear which is too dreadful to even contemplate.

Scofflaw

gandalf wrote: »

TBH someone in the Israeli Government needs to rein in all these manics from making statements like this. They need one voice and it needs to be a voice of reason. Having some experience of the mentality of people from this side of the world this could end up being a shooting war because of some very loose words.

And before I get jumped on for being anti-Israeli or a Jew hater I mean on all sides. Trash talking is one thing if its two individuals doing it. When its two countries with large well armed military forces then we are heading for a very dangerous situation that will pale the Gaza hardship a hundred fold if it is allowed to escalate.

And that's not even considering if a conflict goes nuclear which is too dreadful to even contemplate.

True - this is one of the worst genuinely likely conflicts I've seen on the radar for years. The Turks see themselves as a dominant player in the Eastern Med and the Middle East, and so does Israel. Both are Western allies, and both are, as you say, very heavily armed - world's 10th and 11th military powers. Also, both have the kind of machismo that makes it hard to back down.

And when part of the argument for such a thing not happening consists of "surely they couldn't be that stupid", and the "they" is Israel...

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

They need one voice and it needs to be a voice of reason.

Unfortunately that will get missed among the "who said what, who did what crap?".

My name is URL

Israel trying to stir it up? - http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/bin-laden-aides-hiding-in-iran/story-e6frfku0-1225877288776

Byron85

My name is URL wrote: »

Israel trying to stir it up? - http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/bin-laden-aides-hiding-in-iran/story-e6frfku0-1225877288776

Trying to stir it up and obviously clutching at straws. Anything that Israel comes out with now is going to be regarded with suspicion by the majority of the western world.

Manic Moran

What the Hell? Is that just posturing to make the Turks back down, or are they serious?

There is a little misrepresentation here. MG Dayan is retired, and is not currently in a position of authority in the Israeli system. He was speaking his own opinion, not that of the Israeli government.

NTM

billy the squid

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Trying to stir it up and obviously clutching at straws. Anything that Israel comes out with now is going to be regarded with suspicion by the majority of the western world.

They don't need the rest of the world to believe it. all they need of for the ADL and AIPAC in the US to repeat it, and it will be taken as gospel by those on the right in America.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

What the Hell? Is that just posturing to make the Turks back down, or are they serious?

Alalam is an Iranian site/channel so they don't give the context or the full story. Dayan is a former general but these days he is just a member of the knesset with no official post or power.

The story was up on Haaretz yesterday but I can't locate it there at the moment because the archiving system on their site is rubbish these days. I did find the story as reported in Haaretz on another site though http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/uzi-dayan-if-erdogan

Alalam (and presstv too) left out a statement from someone who does actually have power:

But another top defense official, Amos Gilad, who heads the defense ministry's policy unit, urged colleagues to tone down their denunciations of Erdogan rather than exacerbate the crisis with Turkey. "Precisely because there is a crisis, we need to act with judgment and avoid calling a democratically elected leader a terrorist," Gilad said.

BlaasForRafa

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Trying to stir it up and obviously clutching at straws. Anything that Israel comes out with now is going to be regarded with suspicion by the majority of the western world.

Another misrepresentation, Debkafile is not an official Israeli government source, far from it. So trying to represent it as some attempt at deception and distraction is mistaken.

If you actually do some checking on it http://www.debka.com/article/8841/ you'll see that debkafile are reporting on statements made by a Kuwaiti newspaper. The story may be mad stuff but you can't blame it on the Israeli government or authorities.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

True - this is one of the worst genuinely likely conflicts I've seen on the radar for years. The Turks see themselves as a dominant player in the Eastern Med and the Middle East, and so does Israel. Both are Western allies, and both are, as you say, very heavily armed - world's 10th and 11th military powers. Also, both have the kind of machismo that makes it hard to back down.

And when part of the argument for such a thing not happening consists of "surely they couldn't be that stupid", and the "they" is Israel...

cordially,
Scofflaw

that last line is facetious. But then I guess the turks never do anything wrong and the kurds are a free and happy people who have never been repressed at all at all.

Memnoch

IDF claims people on the flotilla were known terrorists.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-American-threatens-legal-action-against-Israel-over-Gaza-flotilla-terrorism-95847374.html?page=1

no evidence of course...