Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Winty

del88 wrote: »

Why do people except 30,00 children dying everyday of preventable diseases in africa alone??

Are you some type of Hybrid online Chugger

Macha

Sand wrote: »

I know, my point was the organisers entire purpose was to arrange a confrontation with the IDF for propaganda purposes. Some boring delivery of aid wasnt in line with their aim of confrontation.

Boring? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been boring to the intended recipients.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, they wanted a public confrontation on TV. It wouldnt have suited them to do it in pitch blackness.

Do you have any evidence of this or is it your opinion?

Sand wrote: »

Ships are boarded and inspected all the time. Unfortunately, in this case, the objective of those being boarded was not to co-operate with the inspection, but instead to spark a confrontation that would make for good TV. Their leadership lost control, they devolved into a mob, and the soldiers defended themselves with lethal force in fear for their lives and the lives of their comrades.

You see nothing wrong with Israeli soldiers illegally boarding a ship in a confrontational manner? I'd love to see how you react if highly armed Israeli soldiers started dropping onto your ship in the middle of the night.

Sand wrote: »

Its sad. The organisers wanted an emotional confrontation, but they perhaps hyped up their members too much, and ignored the real dangers and risks - what quality of training or planning did they have for what to do and how to act when boarded? Did they train their members on how to engage in passive resistance as opposed to attempting to beat people to death?

And are Israeli soldiers not taught to show restraint? Aren't they supposed to be able to board a ship without shooting 20 civilians dead?

Sand wrote: »

I dont expect there will be any rational evaluation of this. Its a desperately sad tragedy, and these people were perhaps misled and deluded by their leadership. I have no doubt the leadership of "the cause" will exploit them for all their worth, and then theyll go try to recruit another group of young impressionable people to fire up into a rage and throw at the IDF for another propaganda martyrdom.

You seem to like this word "leadership". Would you not accept that the people on the ship were fully informed individuals, long engaged with the Palestinian situation and aware of the dangers? Why are you painting them as ignorant exploited people?

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You're under a misapprehension. Nobody fired on Israel first. Israeli soldiers, if they were attacked, were only attacked after they fired on innocent people and attempted to seize their ships in the middle of the night in international waters. You're entitled to defend your ship from piracy, even if it is Israel.

Who's your mole on the inside? Apparently you know exactly what happened and when.:rolleyes:

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: There's plenty of footage showing this "allleged struggle".

Shot only after a struggle. Israel came in firing, these people feared for their lives and were entitled to defend themselves. Presuming they did attempt. I saw footage of a guy holding a metal bar, I didn't any fight between Israeli soldiers and crew members.

Johnboy1951

Israel monitored this flotilla and knew exactly where the boats were and their speed etc etc.
There were no surprises in store for Israel.
They were also aware of the care with with the cargo was loaded and checked.

So they decide they want to inspect the cargo anyway.
The flotilla is approaching Gazan waters ...... about 40 Kms outside at 3am.

Now will someone please tell me some reason that a reasonable person might find acceptable, that the Israelis did not wait the hour or so, until dawn, surround the boats in daylight, instruct them to prepare for boarding (they now being inside waters controlled by Israel), and from there on direct the boats into an Israeli port.

It would have been a normal operation by the coast-guard, maybe backed up by some navy presence, and there would not have been much about it at all.
The Israelis could have inspected the cargo, and the aid delivered.

I look forward to an acceptable reason why it was not done this way.

****

What they did was send in armed commandos during the darkest hour, all of them fully armed and trained for such difficult boardings where they expect to be met by 'terrorists'.
This happened in international waters where those on board had every right to expect to be left alone ....... at least until they approached the exclusion limit.

That was an unnecessary act of aggression.
It was designed, IMO, to elicit serious reaction from the people on board.

Personally I have no doubt that a number of those on board were prepared to put up a fight, and indeed may even have made some simple weapons in preparation -- batons of wood or iron seem to appear on some videos.

The fact that the invasion of the boat took place in darkness, at a time designed to catch those on board unawares, seems not to have worked ....... and bloodshed resulted.

*******

Now consider what the result might have been if all this had been done in daylight, by someone other than commandos, what might have happened?
Certainly it would be easier to single out an activist who was putting some officer's life in danger, rather than involve others who may have had no such aim.


I believe that Israel deliberately manipulated this situation for some purpose of its own.
I cannot believe they did this out of stupidity. They may be very arrogant, but I would not have thought utterly stupid.

Yes, considering the alternatives Israel had, in how they could have dealt with this, there must be a reason other than stupidity, they chose to board, in darkness, using commandos fully trained and armed in anti-terrorist activities.

****

The action they took and the method they chose appears to have been deliberately designed for something 'to go wrong'.

I find that puzzling.

>

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

We need footage from the beginning to the end of the events to validate all stories. Showing edited footage proves nothing, as it doesn't show who started the events.Understand?

Yes. However when someone claims the Israelis started firing first where are you with the above?

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

Who's your mole on the inside? Apparently you know exactly what happened and when.:rolleyes:

More repetition on the same obfuscation. It's already been reported by those on board that they were fired upon from helicopters. This has already been stated several times in this thread and a few times in direct response to your statements.

Mr.Micro

Memnoch wrote: »

Which I'm sure is only a small fraction of the footage and photography of the attack on the aid flotilla. The only amount that got out live in the middle of struggle and panic.

I'm sure most of the evidence will be confisicated and destroyed by the Israelis.

You can bet on that...the truth is not what Israel wants but propaganda to discredit a worthy humanitarian effort. In 2010 the state of Israel controlling the Gaza strip and the impoverished Palestinian people its positively medieval, why is it allowed to happen?

alastair

Sand wrote: »

IShips are boarded and inspected all the time. Unfortunately, in this case, the objective of those being boarded was not to co-operate with the inspection, but instead to spark a confrontation that would make for good TV. Their leadership lost control, they devolved into a mob, and the soldiers defended themselves with lethal force in fear for their lives and the lives of their comrades.

You don't see ships being boarded in international waters all the time - for the simple reason that it's against the law. The exceptions have been listed a number of times in this thread, and the flotilla din't fall under tghose exceptions.

Now - as to the intentions of the flotilla - why not go and look at the history of outcomes for previous flotillas - surely the best demonstrator for what might have been reasonably expected from this one. I'd suggest that it's not unreasonable to expect that illegal nighttime invasion by gun-happy commandos and the shooting of 50 odd people (on a single ship afaik!) didn't factor too highly on anyone's expectations.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

Who's your mole on the inside? Apparently you know exactly what happened and when.:rolleyes:

I think a good rule of thumb when dealing with Israeli propaganda is to break down every sentence and take the exact opposite as fact. This isn't something I've just invented; it's borne out observation of events and associated Israeli propaganda.

Winty

• taconnol wrote: »

  And are Israeli soldiers not taught to show restraint? Aren't they supposed to be able to board a ship without shooting 20 civilians dead?

They did show restraint by only killing 20, what would you have done if people where attacking you with metal poles and you had a gun?

del88

Winty wrote: »

Are you some type of Hybrid online Chugger

What a chugger?

eoin5

Sand wrote: »

Ships are boarded and inspected all the time. Unfortunately, in this case, the objective of those being boarded was not to co-operate with the inspection, but instead to spark a confrontation that would make for good TV.

I'd disagree that they wanted 10 of their crew to die if thats what you're saying. What kind of confrontation would have been desirable?

If ships are boarded routinely in international waters what is the legal basis of it? Is there a protocol? Shouldnt interpol or some such group be involved? What use are international waters otherwise?

Chriskavo

Denerick wrote: »

The beautiful comferts of unthinking irrationality and emotionalism. How I envy you

So you see nothing wrong with the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians on a flotilla in international waters? Israel is not above international law, it is a terrorist Zionist state that has been engaging in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians right from its illegal inception. The beautiful comfort is knowing that the vast majority of decent law abiding people in this world condemn this evil genocide.

Byron85

Earlier today the IDF released footage of the "weapons" they confiscated from the activists.

4:18pm: The IDF just released another video, which shows two wounded Israeli soldiers (their conditions are unclear) and several of the weapons allegedly found on board the ship.

The collection of weapons includes a crudely-made slingshot, a thin metal pipe, and what appears to be a plastic bag filled with marbles. Nowhere is there evidence of guns, or even of knives. Most of the weapons appear to be improvised out of materials found on board the ship

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

More repetition on the same obfuscation. It's already been reported by those on board that they were fired upon from helicopters. This has already been stated several times in this thread and a few times in direct response to your statements.

Oh well if someone stated it on this thread it must be true :rolleyes:..

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I think a good rule of thumb when dealing with Israeli propaganda is to break down every sentence and take the exact opposite as fact. This isn't something I've just invented; it's borne out observation of events and associated Israeli propaganda.

:rolleyes: Yeah that about sums it up alright. That's why nothing will ever change.

Macha

Winty wrote: »

They did show restraint by only killing 20, what would you have done if people where attacking you with metal poles and you had a gun?

Is this a genuine question? You have Israeli soldiers illegally and aggressively boarding a ship in the middle of the night armed to the teeth with incredibly high-tech and expensive (thanks Uncle Sam) weaponry.

You have a metal pole but you're lucky in the end that only 20 of you are dead? If you have the gun, you have the advantage. Your logic basically leads to the position that he who has a gun gets to do the most damage, which in turn leads to the logic of an arms race. But ah wait, only the Israelis are allowed to have the big guns.

I'm having difficulty in believing I have to explain this one.

Winty

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

"weapons".

A weapon is a weapon. I once killed a rat with a tooth brush

alastair

Denerick wrote: »

I'm saying its dishonest for people to criticise Israel for firing back after being fired upon first. Read my post a little more closely.

There's no evidence (so far) to suggest that the IDF was fired on first. That they would drop down soldiers with paintball guns following being shot on doesn't wash. Nor does the IDF footage of protestors using chairs and bits of railing etc exactly prop up this notion of an ambushed IDF forced into retaliation.

prinz

Chriskavo wrote: »

So you see nothing wrong with the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians on a flotilla in international waters?

Obviously the concept of cold blooded murder is lost on you.

taconnol wrote: »

Is this a genuine question? You have Israeli soldiers illegally and aggressively boarding a ship in the middle of the night armed to the teeth with incredibly high-tech and expensive (thanks Uncle Sam) weaponry..

High-tech and expensive paint-ball guns..

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Yes. However when someone claims the Israelis started firing first where are you with the above?

I can give my opinion on who I believe started it, but I cannot claim that it is fact based on an edited video.

In my opinion - it does not make sense that a group of peace & humanitarian activists would attack some of the most traiend soldiers in the world, who were kitted out in machine guns and body armour.

What does make sense however is that - Israel attacked, and a few activists were enraged by the deaths - and fought back (probably resulting in them being murdered too).

DidierMc

I see the Israeli propaganda machine is in full flow. Is anyone stupid enough to believe them?

youcrazyjesus!

Winty wrote: »

A weapon is a weapon. I once killed a rat with a tooth brush

Your posts are quite pathetic. Grown ups are debating this.

Byron85

Winty wrote: »

A weapon is a weapon. I once killed a rat with a tooth brush

Hands are also technically weapons. By your reckoning everyone on board should have been shot as they were all a legitimate threat due to the fact that they have hands and opposable thumbs; since we're being pedantic and all.

Macha

prinz wrote: »

High-tech and expensive paint-ball guns..

You think 20 people died because they were shot with paint-ball guns?

youcrazyjesus!

DidierMc wrote: »

I see the Israeli propaganda machine is in full flow. Is anyone stupid enough to believe them?

Plenty judging by the thread. There isn't any element of any story put out by the IDF so fantastical that Israeli apologists here won't repeat it mindlessly.

Winty

taconnol wrote: »

Is this a genuine question? You have Israeli soldiers illegally and aggressively boarding a ship in the middle of the night armed to the teeth with incredibly high-tech and expensive (thanks Uncle Sam) weaponry.
You have a metal pole but you're lucky in the end that only 20 of you are dead?
I'm having difficulty in believing I have to explain this one.

The film I saw was the moment the IDF landed on the ship they were attacked. What should they have done? just take a beating?

DidierMc

Winty wrote: »

A weapon is a weapon. I once killed a rat with a tooth brush

You are most likely mentally disturbed

DidierMc

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Plenty judging by the thread. There isn't any element of any story put out by the IDF so fantastical that Israeli apologists here won't repeat it mindlessly.

Goebbels himself would be in awe of the Israeli lies and slanders dressed up as facts.

Macha

Winty wrote: »

The film I saw was the moment the IDF landed on the ship they were attacked. What should they have done? just take a beating?

Firstly, they shouldn't have boarded. Do you accept that?

Secondly, if they were going to board, they shouldn't have done it in such an incredibly confrontational, aggressive manner. Do you accept that?

Thirdly, do you think the only response to being attacked is mowing everyone down like cannon fodder? Is that your understanding of close combat?