Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

ArmaniJeanss

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I have read through many posts in this thread, heavy stuff, so whats the main view of the boards family Israel right or wrong?

Both sides of the argument are going to reach a consensus middle-ground in the next few hours, I reckon.

prinz

wes wrote: »

The IDF was the aggressor, and the other group defending themselves, so yes the IDF are at fault.

What next? Bombing a café is ok because Israel are the aggressors? Taking unilateral positions is never going to solve anything. Claiming that the IDF are 100% responsible is nonsense and is the kind of rhetoric which prolongs the problems in the region.

wes wrote: »

At the end of the day, the IDF were the ones who murdered a bunch of people, and not the the floatilla people who defended themselves from a bunch of pirates attacking them.

Again with this. As dlofnep would say I'd like to see an unedited video of the whole thing, but any video I've seen so far shows crowds on the deck pulling the IDF soldiers from their ropes etc, before they've even hit the deck... how were they attacking them?

halkar

Denerick wrote: »

The Israeli's said they would not allow the flotilla to reach Gaza. The crew knew this. They were engaging in a deliberate act of provocation, a media stunt of the most blatant kind, and the end result was a shoot out. I could be wrong, I'll wait until a more balanced account of the events emerges. But these activists knew fine well what would happen, and the village drunk could've told them that attacking commando's with metal bars and tables would not end well. I'm sorry, I do not believe acts of immense stupidity should be admired or honoured. Whatever the moral questions involved.

You are forgetting one crucial point here. As you call "They" did NOT reach Gaza and did NOT entered Gazan or Israeli waters. They were in International waters bound by International laws not Israeli laws.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

Thats completely different. That guy bravely refused to allow a tank to go past him. He didn't charge at the tank like a blithering idiot with a rotten egg.

No, he had shopping bags, I seem to recall. But the analogy is apt - he was up against the military might of China, and it was obvious to everyone that he was going to die - and he did.

Perhaps you can't see the parallel - people don't always lie down meekly, even when they'll be hurt as a result. Indeed, were it not for such people, there would be a lot less justice in the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

halkar wrote: »

You are forgetting one crucial point here. As you call "They" did NOT reach Gaza and did NOT entered Gazan or Israeli waters. They were in International waters bound by International laws not Israeli laws.

It wouldn't have made any difference to 99% of people if the same thing had happened off the coast of Tel Aviv.

wes

prinz wrote: »

What next? Bombing a café is ok because Israel are the aggressors?

Utter nonsense. Armed IDF pirates attacked there boat, there is no comparison, to defending yourself from pirates, and attacking a random coffee shop.

prinz wrote: »

Again with this. As dlofnep would say I'd like to see an unedited video of the whole thing, but any video I've seen so far shows crowds on the deck pulling the IDF soldiers from their ropes etc, before they've even hit the deck... how were they attacking them?

A bunch of armed commando's boarding it was an attack.

Secondly, the flotilla people claimed they were fired on first, and the Israeli's claim otherwise. 2 sides to the story, but imho, either way Israel is in the wrong, as they had no business on the boat.

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps you can't see the parallel - people don't always lie down meekly, even when they'll be hurt as a result. Indeed, were it not for such people, there would be a lot less justice in the world.

They had to weigh up their options. If they were as concerned about humanitarian aid getting to Gaza that would have been their primary concern, not trying to pick a fight with the IDF. They chose to put delivering humanitarian aid second to trying to make a point.

Denerick

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, he had shopping bags, I seem to recall. But the analogy is apt - he was up against the military might of China, and it was obvious to everyone that he was going to die - and he did.

Perhaps you can't see the parallel - people don't always lie down meekly, even when they'll be hurt as a result. Indeed, were it not for such people, there would be a lot less justice in the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps you don't see the crucial difference. The whole point behind moral force resistance is in shaming your enemy into submission. The tank did not just drive over him. It tried to swerve round him. Eventually he was grabbed by someone in the crowd and he somehow escaped (As far as I know)

When the Israeli commando's descended onto the ship and were attacked with metal bars, they weren't exactly shamed into submission, where they? I doubt such a course of action would have even entered the aid worker's pysche. If you are willing to use violence, be prepared to face the consequences.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Armed IDF pirates attacked there boat, there is no comparison, to defending yourself from pirates, and attacking a random coffee shop.

Pirates?

wes wrote: »

A bunch of armed commando's boarding it was an attack.

Nope. They were told they'd be brought to port. It wasn't some attack to kill everyone on board nor sink the ships and their cargo.

wes wrote: »

Secondly, the flotilla people claimed they were fired on first, and the Israeli's claim otherwise..

Supressing and warning fire is SOP is boarding a vessel at sea. If the Irish FPV's are forced to detain and board a vessel at sea they will also fire across the bow etc. Again, any video I have scene shows nobody was firing as they descended to the deck, nobody fired as they landed on the deck, the firing started afterwards as the fighting continued.

wes wrote: »

2 sides to the story, but imho, either way Israel is in the wrong, as they had no business on the boat.

LOL, see what I mean. Two sides, but Israel is automatically in the wrong.

thebouldwhacker

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Both sides of the argument are going to reach a consensus middle-ground in the next few hours, I reckon.

Cool, I'll pop back in a few hours to see the group hug, thats if Scoff doesnt have everyone banned by then....:pac:

IrishTonyO

McCalvin wrote: »

For what it's worth, I've mailed Micheal Martin (michealmartintd@eircom.net) and thanked him for his actions (condemning the action and calling Israel's ambassador to Ireland in for talks). I've asked him also to consider severing our ties with their country and expelling Dr Zion Evrony.

I did likewise and also mailed all of my TD

wes

prinz wrote: »

Pirates?

They were pirates.

prinz wrote: »

Nope. They were told they'd be brought to port. It wasn't some attack to kill everyone on board nor sink the ships and their cargo.

They had no right to bring them to port, or any right to attack them with commandos, and murder a bunch of people.

prinz wrote: »

Supressing and warning fire is SOP is boarding a vessel at sea. If the Irish FPV's are forced to detain and board a vessel at sea they will also fire across the bow etc. Again, any video I have scene shows nobody was firing as they descended to the deck, nobody fired as they landed on the deck, the firing started afterwards as the fighting continued.

The video's from the IDF, are utter bull, and the IDF are well known liars, so I reject there version of events. They also blocked all communication, so there other side can't get there side of the story out. Seems to me Israel is again hiding another murderous outrage.

Either way, Israel had no right to go on the boat, and what they did was an act of piracy, and the people on the boat defended themselves, from the attacking pirates, who then proceeded to murdered several people.

prinz wrote: »

LOL, see what I mean. Two sides, but Israel is automatically in the wrong.

Israel is wrong either way, as they had no business on that boat, and bunch of innocent people were murdered by IDF pirates. I think it hilarious, the amount of obfuscation going into defending this clearly and indefensible act of piracy, by the IDF.

jill_valentine

It's worth noting, by the way, that at least one of the Irish protestors has been shot by the IDF before, and witnessed the killing of Iain Hook - in both cases, unlawful shootings. The people on that boat had absolutely no reason to believe that the IDF men fastroping onto their vessel in the dead of night were coming with peaceful intentions, and neither do I.

But that's neither here nor there. The split second an Israeli boot hit the deck, they were the aggressors. They were attempting to board and commandeer the ship by force, outside of their own jurisdiction. They were already engaged in a violent action, whatever action the protestors took afterwards. I have sympathy for the first poor sap down the rope, but ultimately, whoever put him on that boat is responsible for the mess that ensued.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

They had to weigh up their options. If they were as concerned about humanitarian aid getting to Gaza that would have been their primary concern, not trying to pick a fight with the IDF. They chose to put delivering humanitarian aid second to trying to make a point.

Delivering their humanitarian aid to Gaza was not actually one of the available options, though. Delivering it to the people who operate the blockade was what was on offer - perhaps they didn't think their aid would get through?

Denerick wrote:

Perhaps you don't see the crucial difference. The whole point behind moral force resistance is in shaming your enemy into submission. The tank did not just drive over him. It tried to swerve round him. Eventually he was grabbed by someone in the crowd and he somehow escaped (As far as I know)

He was indeed grabbed by someone in the crowd.

Video footage shows that two figures in blue attire then pulled the man away and absorbed him into the crowd; the tanks continued on their way. Eyewitness reporter Charlie Cole believes that the man was taken away by secret police and was just one of the many executed in the aftermath of the military crackdown, since the Chinese government was never able to produce him after the images became public

What would one expect?

When the Israeli commando's descended onto the ship and were attacked with metal bars, they weren't exactly shamed into submission, where they? I doubt such a course of action would have even entered the aid worker's pysche. If you are willing to use violence, be prepared to face the consequences.

If you drop armed men from helicopters onto a boat full of scared and tense people, you can expect that. The people on the boat didn't have anywhere else to go (and didn't need to, since they were at that point still in international waters), but the IDF had other options.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Simplicius

McCalvin wrote: »

I am another to completely and utterly condemn these killings.

There is no excuses for the deadly force used, particularly when you consider the Isreali forces were supposed to be cream of the crop commandos trained in this sort of operation.

I've never really believed in the pro-palestine's arguments about Israeli propaganda etc. etc. But a quick look around various Israeli news sites and certain American news agencies really is opening my eyes. All of a sudden I wonder how many international rules/guidlines this country break in their quest for [Insert Propaganda here].

For what it's worth, I've mailed Micheal Martin (michealmartintd@eircom.net) and thanked him for his actions (condemning the action and calling Israel's ambassador to Ireland in for talks). I've asked him also to consider severing our ties with their country and expelling Dr Zion Evrony.

Thank you for saying exactly what I too feel, this was morally wrong on so many levels.

The Jewish people from history should know only too well what appeasement of facist regimes leads to. They have the intimate knowledge what happened their older relatives by initially trying to appease the Nazi's by agreeing to their intial demands. The rest of the international community seems to also have forgotten what happened by trying to appease that former regime. How easily we forget.

The actions of the state of Israel today was a slur on the memory of all the victims of the holocaust. Their ongoing treatment of the Palestinian's is no different than those in Germany in the late 30's although it might be spun in different terms, the fundamentals are the same.

The Irish government should immediately move to remove all the trade benficial pacts from Israel, if they do not respect International Law and basic human rights, they do not deserve preferential trade agreements with the EU.

We need to realise this is no different from the former South African apartheid regime. We need to boycott the goods and only hope that those that daily stock Israeli products on the shelves of M&S and Tesco refuse to handle those products.

This zionist state is doing a huge disservice to the jewish people worldwide. I only hope that eventually boycotts and commercial pressures make them come to the table.

It took me a long time to realise that being anti Israeli policy or Anti Zionist does not in the least have anything to do with religion. One is not Anti -Semetic by thinking that Israel is a state that needs to be brought to heel by the International community for their anti humanitarian and apartheid treatment of the palestinian people.

My thoughts are with all those who are dead and injured on both side, for those who live in fear daily on both sides of the fence. There is another answer. We found it after years of no alternatives.

El Horseboxo

prinz wrote: »

What next? Bombing a café is ok because Israel are the aggressors? Taking unilateral positions is never going to solve anything. Claiming that the IDF are 100% responsible is nonsense and is the kind of rhetoric which prolongs the problems in the region.



but any video I've seen so far shows crowds on the deck pulling the IDF soldiers from their ropes etc, before they've even hit the deck... how were they attacking them?

How do you know that they were the first soldiers on board? There was clearly a lot of running around at that stage so there has to have been something already happening prior to the footage that the IDF have released. They point out that flash bangs are being thrown at them that were taken from IDF soldiers. How did the activists take these flash bangs when soldiers were only coming down the ropes onto the ship for the first time? That video shows someone getting attacked but yet on a lower deck they are simultaneously saying that flash bangs are being thrown. I've heard from 3 sources that 2 people were shot prior to any of the footage Israelis have shown. One is from the sister of a friend on one of the other ships. I doubt a full video from start to finish will be released but i just can't believe that Israeli ships and helicopters pulled up along side the ship and told them they were coming on board. And in response they picked up whatever weapons they could find and began attacking IDF forces. It just doesn't make sense. Having been on ships in the past delivering aid i just can't believe the Israelis account of it. Not without solid proof of unedited footage from start to finish.

prinz

wes wrote: »

They were pirates.
They had no right to bring them to port, or any right to attack them with commandos, and murder a bunch of people.

Except they do have that right.

wes wrote: »

The video's from the IDF, are utter bull, and the IDF are well known liars, so I reject there version of events. They also blocked all communication, so there other side can't get there side of the story out. Seems to me Israel is again hiding another murderous outrage.

In case you haven't been watching Sky1 there is video of the beginning of the incident from Al Jazeera from a Turkish correspondant. Is he in on the Israeli lies? Of course you reject out of hand the IDF version, I mean why look at both sides to see who did what, when you've got all the info already.

wes wrote: »

Either way, Israel had no right to go on the boat, and what they did was an act of piracy, and the people on the boat defended themselves, from the attacking pirates, who then proceeded to murdered several people.

That's debatable.

wes wrote: »

I think it hilarious, the amount of obfuscation going into defending this clearly and indefensible act of piracy, by the IDF.

What about the amount of unsubstantiated rubbish about the IDF? I find a lot of that equally as hilarious.

Chriskavo

prinz wrote: »

Except they do have that right.



In case you haven't been watching Sky1 there is video of the beginning of the incident from Al Jazeera from a Turkish correspondant. Is he in on the Israeli lies? Of course you reject out of hand the IDF version, I mean why look at both sides to see who did what, when you've got all the info already.



That's debatable.



What about the amount of unsubstantiated rubbish about the IDF? I find a lot of that equally as hilarious.

I suspect that you are trolling on behalf of the Zionist Israeli government? How much are they paying you?

prinz

El Horseboxo wrote: »

How do you know that they were the first soldiers on board? There was clearly a lot of running around at that stage so there has to have been something already happening prior to the footage that the IDF have released.

It matches perfectly with the footage from the Turkish crew on board.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

They point out that flash bangs are being thrown at them that were taken from IDF soldiers. How did the activists take these flash bangs when soldiers were only coming down the ropes onto the ship for the first time?

Flashbangs are thrown in/dropped first. You don't want your own soldiers disorientated by them. They are used to try and clear the landing area before the soldiers from the helicopters.

gandalf

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's worth noting, by the way, that at least one of the Irish protestors has been shot by the IDF before, and witnessed the killing of Iain Hook - in both cases, unlawful shootings. The people on that boat had absolutely no reason to believe that the IDF men fastroping onto their vessel in the dead of night were coming with peaceful intentions, and neither do I.

But that's neither here nor there. The split second an Israeli boot hit the deck, they were the aggressors. They were attempting to board and commandeer the ship by force, outside of their own jurisdiction. They were already engaged in a violent action, whatever action the protestors took afterwards. I have sympathy for the first poor sap down the rope, but ultimately, whoever put him on that boat is responsible for the mess that ensued.

This is thing that some people are ignoring. The fact that the IDF boarded this ship in International Waters makes this an illegal operation and means that they have full responsibility for everything that occurred after this boarding.

I actually feel sorry for the IDF Commandos sent to board this ship they were put in an impossible position especially the way the whole operation was planned. Their commanders botched it badly, they at best miscalculated at worst knew that people would be put in harms way, injured and killed.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Except they do have that right.

No, they don't have any such right. They were pirates plain and simple.

prinz wrote: »

In case you haven't been watching Sky1 there is video of the beginning of the incident from Al Jazeera from a Turkish correspondant. Is he in on the Israeli lies? Of course you reject out of hand the IDF version, I mean why look at both sides to see who did what, when you've got all the info already.

The IDF are well known liars, and I have seen a video, where we hear the IDF firing shots first as well. I fully admit several different video's exists, and I do completely reject anything and everything the IDF, has to say, as they always lie. I could care less about there side of the story, they have as much credibility as Hamas imho.

prinz wrote: »

That's debatable.

No it isn't.

prinz wrote: »

What about the amount of unsubstantiated rubbish about the IDF? I find a lot of that equally as hilarious.

I find the constant denial of the IDF act of piracy completely hilarious, as well as the constant obfuscation and defense of a clear act of murder.

Scofflaw

Chriskavo wrote: »

I suspect that you are trolling on behalf of the Zionist Israeli government? How much are they paying you?

Banned.

moderately,
Scofflaw

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Delivering their humanitarian aid to Gaza was not actually one of the available options, though. Delivering it to the people who operate the blockade was what was on offer - perhaps they didn't think their aid would get through?

The Israelis offered to let them verify that it would be transported to Gaza before they left. This was refused. Just why 800 people were needed is also beyond me.

prinz

wes wrote: »

I fully admit several different video's exists, and I do completely reject anything and everything the IDF, has to say, as they always lie..

Which, again, sums up nicely why the Mid East is never going to be at peace.

wes

prinz wrote: »

The Israelis offered to let them verify that it would be transported to Gaza before they left. This was refused.

Why would anyone trust the people behind the siege, who have banned chocolate, and pasta at certain points, in petty and childish acts against the people of Gaza?

thebaldsoprano

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Says it all really.

Nope, that video says some of it - the part that they want you to see.

That video had at least three cuts and no sound, how do you know that the IDF hadn't already opened fire, for instance? No doubt the other side will be up to similar shenanigans, which is why short clips such as this are best looked at with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

The Israelis offered to let them verify that it would be transported to Gaza before they left. This was refused. Just why 800 people were needed is also beyond me.

Perhaps they didn't believe that either? Seriously, at this stage Israel could carry what's left of its good name in a sock with a hole in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wes

prinz wrote: »

Which, again, sums up nicely why the Mid East is never going to be at peace.

Oh please, something said on this board, has no bearing on peace in the ME. Seriously, what your saying is an extreme case of hyperbole.

Also, yes the IDF do lie, and this has been shown again and again. When the IDF stop lieing, and improve there reputation, then I will believe them. As it stands, they have 0 credibility, and are on par with Hamas.

Anyway back on topic.....

prinz

wes wrote: »

Why would anyone trust the people behind the siege, who have banned chocolate, and pasta at certain points, in petty and childish acts against the people of Gaza?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps they didn't believe that either? Seriously, at this stage Israel could carry what's left of its good name in a sock with a hole in it.

So what? We can just ignore law and order now? I decide tomorrow that the gardaí have lost credibility in my eyes does give me the right to drive through a checkpoint tomorrow? Did the joyriders in the North have the right to drive through checkpoints? Was it the British Army's fault that they then opened fire?

prinz

wes wrote: »

Oh please, something said on this board, has no bearing on peace in the ME. Seriously, what your saying is an extreme case of hyperbole..

It's the same attitude which pervades hardliners on both sides and makes compromise etc impossible.