Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Glenshane Pass

prinz wrote: »

This boarding seems to have been a last resort and there are not many ways to board a ship in an 'unthreatening' manner. I think it's fairly obvious that things went wrong and the Israelis need to shoulder their share of the blame for this, but so must those on board the ship.

It shouldn't have been boarded.

Nodin

Most Haunted wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055925835

And
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055925846

Scofflaw

If I haven't made it clear enough for some people, let me make it clearer - this thread is under watch, and idiotic comments along the lines of "I celebrate these killings because..." or "pity they didn't kill any of the soldiers..." will earn the poster an immediate ban.

It's very simple - if you post flame bait on this thread, you will be banned. Either side, I don't care.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Winty

slavetothegrind wrote: »

FFS could the isrealis not have just blocked the port so they couldn't land rather than having to shoot people?

Thats fair. Sending in troops was a bad move.

alastair

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Rubbish, but you wouldn't agree no matter what.

It's certainly not true that a missile was targetted at the centre of the cross (it's a hole for a vent alright), it's rather more likely that the ambulance was hit by exploding artillary shells nearby (or, if you buy into the wingnuts position - busted up earlier and presented as Israeli damage - in a region being bombarded to ruin by an ongoing Israeli military campaign).

The IDF say they don't know if they hit it or not, just that they didn't intentionally target ambulances, and the Red Cross said that it was hit by unspecified Israeli munitions. I'd opt for the likelyhood of no 'staging' in those circumstances.

Nodin

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing. I understand that the ship was a cover for Hamas

Really? Your powers have grown, Obi Wan. Is there a source we can have for this, other than the IDF?

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

This boarding seems to have been a last resort and there are not many ways to board a ship in an 'unthreatening' manner. I think it's fairly obvious that things went wrong and the Israelis need to shoulder their share of the blame for this, but so must those on board the ship.

There are plenty of ways to board a ship in a manner that makes it clear what is happening - to formalise it, and make it 'official'. Dropping soldiers onto the decks is an assault technique.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

It shouldn't have been boarded.

You're right it shouldn't have been... because it shouldn't have been trying to break the blockade in the first place.

B0jangles

Denerick wrote: »

Cause and effect? If a child hits a bear with a stone, don't be surprised if the bears eats and dismembers the child. Its basic maturity and reasoning. If they did fire at the Israeli's, then its absolutely no surprise what happened them and I struggle to understand how anyone can simply overlook this fact.

So the Israeli army has the same level of control, training and cognitive ability as a bear.

Good to know, thanks.

Glenshane Pass

alastair wrote: »

It's certainly not true that a missile was targetted at the centre of the cross (it's a hole for a vent alright), it's rather more likely that the ambulance was hit by exploding artillary shells nearby (or, if you buy into the wingnuts position - busted up earlier and presented as Israeli damage - in a region being bombarded to ruin by an ongoing Israeli military campaign).

The IDF say they don't know if they hit it or not, just that they didn't intentionally target ambulances, and the Red Cross said that it was hit by unspecified Israeli munitions. I'd opt for the likelyhood of no 'staging' in those circumstances.

No bother, but in this particullar case, I take the word of;
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/5.htm#_Toc152999224

gandalf

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing. I understand that the ship was a cover for Hamas not just aid and supplies. Israel need to protect themselves

Where do you understand that from?

WIZE

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing. I understand that the ship was a cover for Hamas not just aid and supplies. Israel need to protect themselves

Proof Please

You are like Colin Powell discussing WMD in Iraq

slavetothegrind

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing. I understand that the ship was a cover for Hamas not just aid and supplies. Israel need to protect themselves

True enough they need to look out for themselves.

So had the aid organisation invited isreal to inspect the ships cargo before docking to assure them all was genuine?

If so did israel accept?

Glenshane Pass

prinz wrote: »

You're right it shouldn't have been... because it shouldn't have been trying to break the blockade in the first place.

The blockade is illegal, therefore why wouldn't they?

Scofflaw

We really don't need a second thread on this - one is quite enough.

moderately,
Scofflaw

WIZE

WINTY = TROLL

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

slavetothegrind

slavetothegrind = sucka

Denerick

B0jangles wrote: »

So the Israeli army has the same level of control, training and cognitive ability as a bear.

Good to know, thanks.

In a sense, yes. The protesters are absolute morans if they really believe that screaming childish slogans like 'down with zionist imperialism' (A habit most of that irritating type of college student grows out of once he gets a proper job) and firing at one of the most capable armies in the world would end in any other way than bloodshed. Takes two to tango, but as everyone knows the Israelis are not afraid to tango.

halkar

prinz wrote: »

Given that they were warned what would happen it's unlikely that they were caught completely by suprise with no idea what was happening.

As for what was a reasonable response - the rest of the convoy seemed to have managed it.

They were warned? They were still in international waters. They probably did not want to enter Gazan waters (not Israeli) till dawn. Can you imagine something like this happening at day light with nothing to hide by Israelis?
It was a planned military operation on civilians. There were activist from over 30 countries on that ship as well as activists from every major religion including Jews. Israeli's bull**** about Hamas rockets are no longer a reason for their actions in Gaza. After all they did not leave Gaza for their love of Palestinians.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

You're right it shouldn't have been... because it shouldn't have been trying to break the blockade in the first place.

Then they should have been dealt with when they hit Israeli territorial waters. I cannot understand why they didn't wait for this to happen. Then they would have had a legitimate reason to board the boats.

By doing this in International Waters they have passed the initiative to their enemies and scored a major own goal. Of course if they needed more time to "inspect" the cargo and "find" stuff it could make sense.

Winty

Most Haunted wrote: »

Proof Please

You are like Colin Powell discussing WMD in Iraq

Israel said the blockade was intended to hold Hamas – which it views as a terrorist group – "responsible and accountable" for rocket attacks on Israeli territory. It is also intended to constrain Hamas's ability to rule in Gaza, and to put pressure on it to release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held captive for four years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/gaza-blockade-israel

Byron85

Israel is now attacking protesters with the same impunity it showed on the boat.


http://palsolidarity.org/2010/05/12604/

31 May 2010: An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel’s murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.

eoin5

Most Haunted wrote: »

Proof Please

You are like Colin Powell discussing WMD in Iraq

'We know where they are, we have from our intellegence that they are somewhere in the "hold" region.'

Scofflaw

Most Haunted wrote: »

WINTY = TROLL

You're escaping a ban on the basis that I've just merged the thread. Accusations of trolling are not acceptable.

moderately,
Scofflaw

prinz

deadtiger wrote: »

By doing this in International Waters they have passed the initiative to their enemies and scored a major own goal..

Can't argue with that. It's definitely a major cock-up. Again though, difficult to hold all the soldiers on the ground, or ship in this case, accountable - of course anyone found to have acted OTT can be.

Winty

Most Haunted wrote: »

WINTY = TROLL

As the Virgin Mary said "Come Again"

Just because I am not pro Hamas I am a troll??

gandalf

Michael Martin seems to be getting more pissed off.

"The Israeli government requires people to sign papers so that they can be deported," Minister Martin said. "But of course these people did not enter Israel illegally.

"They were essentially kidnapped from international waters, taken into Israel.. And now they are being asked to sign a document almost confirming that they entered illegally.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/martin-irish-citizens-kidnapped-in-international-waters-459870.html#ixzz0pX7OKKd5

They have some cheek the people did not even reach the destination and I believe he is right. They were kidnapped on the high sea. Who'd have thought that IDF and Somali Pirates would operate in the same way.

Sand

Seems a desperately sad situation - hard to understand what possessed the protestors to try and take on armed soldiers. What did they expect would happen? That a soldier knocked to the ground, being beaten and stamped upon would hesitate to kill to save his own life? Or that other soldiers would hesitate before killing men they saw beating their friends and comrades to death before them?

The flotilla was clearly aimed at provoking an Israeli response to attempt to highlight the perceived injustice of the Israeli blockade. They rejected the Israeli proposal that they deliver the goods to Ashood where the Israelis would clear them and they would be delivered to Gaza. I have seen reports that the flotilla diverted course so as to improve the chances of a daylight confrontation with the Israeli military, which would make for better TV.

Policies of passive resistance are favoured by protestors, but it's a policy that requires a great deal of discipline on the part of the protestors and their organisers and its quite clear that the protestors on that ship dissolved into a mob and abandoned passive resistance for aggressive, violent resistance - perhaps overcome by feelings of rage, anger, hate now that they were finally up close with the evil demonic babykilling Israeli military they despised so much. The Flotilla leadership seems to have lost control of the situation, and when a mob of screaming maniacs surround armed soldiers trying to beat them to death, then no one could honestly pretend to be surprised by the consequences.

Interestingly, theres been a report that the parents of Gilad Shilat, the IDF soldier held by Hamas, attempted to contact the flotilla organisers and proposed a deal whereby the Shilat family would publically support their flotilla efforts if the flotilla organisers would use their influence with Hamas to help their son and or bring him their letters. The organisers apparently told them to get stuffed.

prinz

deadtiger wrote: »

Michael Martin seems to be getting more pissed off..

Dr Evrony should start packing his bags IMO.