Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Archie D Bunker

Selkies wrote: »

Also why on earth did they bring children on that boat?

Seriously what kind of parent brings their children to break a blockade?

The kind that use their children as human shields.

wes

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

The kind that use their children as human shields.

The IDF are well known to use Human Shields, and yes they even use children.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I disagree that it was solely self defense.

The Israelis launched an assault raid on the boat. By definition, any action by the people on the boat to prevent the Israelis from taking over is classified as self-defence. Even if you take the Israeli version of events with minimum scepticism, those on the boat were DEFENDING themselves against the VIOLENT assault by the IDF. As evidenced by the VIOLENCE used by the Israelis on people who did not even try to defend themselves.

The Israeli paradigm seems to be... "don't resist and get beaten up or resist and die."

No. Its like giving your child to a pedophile as they got on the flotilla with the full knowledge of who they were dealing with and what the likely outcomes of their choices were.

The outcome was based on the choice of the Israeli's, not the aid workers.

There's little facts about anything at this stage. Attacking a person with a knife is still attacking someone with a knife.

Attacking someone with a knife who is trying to shoot you is called self-defence. Assuming that knives were used at all, for which there is no proof.

So as you're disagreeing with my point then you're saying that even if the boat had surrendered peacefully the IDF would have still shot 9 people?

I'm saying that the Israelis messed up the operation SO BADLY that they made it impossible for the boat to surrender peacefully. The timing and manner of their assault on the lead ship caused a panic among people who thought they were about to be executed. Again, as evidenced by this reporter:

"Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children."

I believe that decisions made on both sides led to this tragedy. I think its ridiculous to put 100% of the blame of this situation onto Israel.

So it's ridiculous to blame the party that has acted illegally every step of the way but not ridiculous to blame those who (even if you believe the Israeli version of events) did NOTHING WRONG under the LAW.

gandalf

Selkies wrote: »

Also why on earth did they bring children on that boat?

Seriously what kind of parent brings their children to break a blockade?

Maybe the type of parent who didn't expect the ship to be boarded illegally in International Waters by Shock Troops normally used in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage and the like.

They may have expected the ships to be turned back like they have been in the past or allowed to continue to Gaza as some have also been allowed to in the past as well.

yoshytoshy

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

The kind that use their children as human shields.

How does anyone know the aid workers reasons for being with the flotilla.
Maybe the women intended on staying in gaza ,I'm sure they'd be more than welcome there.

alastair

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And who called the activists "violent terrorists", your just putting words in peoples mouths as it were.

Captain 'B' - the IDF guy who was pushed/dropped to the lower deck called the passengers 'terrorists' and claimed that 75% of the (bit short of 700)passengers were attacking them. Words from his mouth.

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Did you not look at any of the reportage on this? I'm astonished that you don't know at this stage that they were armed with paintball guns on slings with holstered pistols as backup purely for personal protection.

I've followed the news closely. As I said, hey lets land a handful of commandos into an armed and hostile crowd with paintball guns and leave them with holstered pistols for the hostile crowd to use if they get over powered.

Brilliant tactics.

And who called the activists "violent terrorists", your just putting words in peoples mouths as it were.

Numerous Israeli representatives and spokespersons on COUNTLESS occasions on several news media outlets.

Scofflaw

Selkies wrote: »

Also why on earth did they bring children on that boat?

Seriously what kind of parent brings their children to break a blockade?

Again, the answer is "civilians". Your problem here, I think, is that you need this to be some kind of military or paramilitary confrontation, because the Israelis clearly used military tactics. Unfortunately, it was - or should have been - a civilian episode.

Trying to run a blockade with armed vessels/personnel in time of war is clearly a military challenge. Trying to run a blockade with unarmed vessels/personnel in times of peace is a legal challenge,

Responding to a legal challenge with deadly force is widely regarded as inappropriate.

regards,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

Of course there can. Many have argued that the Condor Legion bombing of Guernica was a state-sponsored terrorist act. The later bombing of Rotterdam, the allied bombing of Dresden..etc

Don't be so stupid if you want to there is a state of war between Israel and Gaza, which even Israel denies, but if there was then the rockets from Gaza would not be terrorism, they would be acts of war. You can't have it both ways

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

.
Brilliant tactics..

Nobody is really defending the tactics tbh. There's a difference between defending the soldiers on deck and the muppets who ordered them there.

irishconvert

Memnoch wrote: »

I've followed the news closely. As I said, hey lets land a handful of commandos into an armed and hostile crowd with paintball guns and leave them with holstered pistols for the hostile crowd to use if they get over powered.

Brilliant tactics.

.

The original Israeli story was that the activists on the ship took a gum from one of the commandos and used it against them ,that why they shot and killed the activists. But if what you say is true then it was a paintball gun the activists seized. Hardly a good reason to shoot someone dead, becuase they had a paintball gun.

gandalf

alastair wrote: »

Captain 'B' - the IDF guy who was pushed/dropped to the lower deck called the passengers 'terrorists' and claimed that 75% of the (bit short of 700)passengers were attacking them. Words from his mouth.

Well if that's the mentality of one of the officers imagine what the normal soldiers thought.

Not exactly ideal candidates to carry out this "Policing" operation eh

Memnoch

irishconvert wrote: »

The original Israeli story was that the activists on the ship took a gum from one of the commandos and used it against them ,that why they shot and killed the activists. But if what you say is true then it was a paintball gun the activists seized. Hardly a good reason to shoot someone dead, becuase they had a paintball gun.

I was being sarcastic.

Selkies

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, you're conflating two things there. They knew Israel would try to stop them when they set off on the convoy. They almost certainly did not believe that Israel would actually try to kill them in order to do so (and I don't believe it ever intended to do so, either).

However, when the night assault happened...naval vessels surrounding you, helicopters, flashbangs, armed commandos jumping onto your decks down ropes...I daresay some may have succumbed, let us say, to doubts.

regards,
Scofflaw

So what exactly was their intention? Did they think that in the face of overwhelming odds they could fend off the helicopter, the gun boats and the commandos with sling shots, iron bars and knives? Did they honestly think there was more safety in confronting the thing they feared rather than surrendering?

I imagine/hope they were warned before they were boarded, does anyone have a video of them being warned? I know that they were asked to follow the navy to ashdod but when were they told they would be boarded if they didn't comply.

To be honest what happened was an act of piracy. What happened was wrong and the blame for those deaths (while it was not intentional) rests primarily with the Israeli government but I still believe that the actions taken by those on board that ship were not the actions of peace activists but rather people looking for a fight, a fight that would end in their martyrdom.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Nobody is really defending the tactics tbh. There's a difference between defending the soldiers on deck and the muppets who ordered them there.

Just following orders is no excuse.

Scofflaw

Euroland wrote: »

You don't like to hear the truth?

Banned for trolling.

moderately,
Scofflaw

[EDIT]In response to PM. Yes, this is censorship. No, I'm not Israeli. And I think my language skills are perfect, thanks.[/EDIT]

Scofflaw

wes wrote: »

Just following orders is no excuse.

Famously so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

wes wrote: »

Just following orders is no excuse.

If you can show that they were under orders to drop on deck and starting killing anyone they saw go ahead.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

If you can show that they were under orders to drop on deck and starting killing anyone they saw go ahead.

So do you believe this was a Policing Operation or a Military one prinz?

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I used logic. If they had intended to kill people they would have been armed with Uzis and Tavors not paintball guns and beanbag guns.

As I said before logic rarely comes into the actions of the IDF

prinz

deadtiger wrote: »

So do you believe this was a Policing Operation or a Military one prinz?

Effectively it combined elements of both.

wes

prinz wrote: »

If you can show that they were under orders to drop on deck and starting killing anyone they saw go ahead.

I know they were ordered to drop on the deck, which they had no right to do, and anything that happened after that is there fault, as they had no business on there in the first place. Just following orders is no excuse on there part, they should tried for murder imho.

alastair

Shocking new addition to the 'sophisticated weapons' cache

Can anyone guess what it is?



clue - it's got a wooden handle and is about 18 inches long. Here's your options:

Zulu

prinz wrote: »

Piracy can't be conducted by a recognised military commissioned vessel.

Indeed you are perfectly correct: (s)he would have been more accurate saying: the war criminals had no business on the boats.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

The Israelis launched an assault raid on the boat. By definition, any action by the people on the boat to prevent the Israelis from taking over is classified as self-defence. Even if you take the Israeli version of events with minimum scepticism, those on the boat were DEFENDING themselves against the VIOLENT assault by the IDF. As evidenced by the VIOLENCE used by the Israelis on people who did not even try to defend themselves.

The Israeli paradigm seems to be... "don't resist and get beaten up or resist and die."

I wouldnt try to walk into Iraq past a US Marine without expecting to be stopped. If they asked I would. We both agree on a lot of things but I believe its commonsense to surrender in that situation and you believe that it should be resisted.

The outcome was based on the choice of the Israeli's, not the aid workers.

No the aid workers decided to run the blockade.

Attacking someone with a knife who is trying to shoot you is called self-defence. Assuming that knives were used at all, for which there is no proof.

Earlier on the thread there was an interview with one of the eye witnesses who has been making excuses for the use of knives. I suppose he's another plant by the IDF. :rolleyes:

I'm saying that the Israelis messed up the operation SO BADLY that they made it impossible for the boat to surrender peacefully. The timing and manner of their assault on the lead ship caused a panic among people who thought they were about to be executed. Again, as evidenced by this reporter:

"Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children."

So you're saying that at no point they weren't offered a chance to surrender or to go the Israeli port? They chose not to and now we see the results. If you doubt so much that they had a chance to surrender (even though the other boats had no fatalities) do you think that the boats accepting to go to the Israeli port would have stopped the deaths?

So it's ridiculous to blame the party that has acted illegally every step of the way but not ridiculous to blame those who (even if you believe the Israeli version of events) did NOTHING WRONG under the LAW.

Just to clarify you believe then that 100% of the blame lies with Israel?

Scofflaw

Selkies wrote: »

So what exactly was their intention? Did they think that in the face of overwhelming odds they could fend off the helicopter, the gun boats and the commandos with sling shots, iron bars and knives? Did they honestly think there was more safety in confronting the thing they feared rather than surrendering?

I imagine/hope they were warned before they were boarded, does anyone have a video of them being warned? I know that they were asked to follow the navy to ashdod but when were they told they would be boarded if they didn't comply.

To be honest what happened was an act of piracy. What happened was wrong and the blame for those deaths (while it was not intentional) rests primarily with the Israeli government but I still believe that the actions taken by those on board that ship were not the actions of peace activists but rather people looking for a fight, a fight that would end in their martyrdom.

Again, that involves rather more supposition than one should really be making, and it prejudges the issue. Nor does it really explain how it is that the violence all happened on one vessel...well, there's a possible explanation if we're prepared to accept certain views of Turkish men.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

irishconvert wrote: »

The original Israeli story was that the activists on the ship took a gum from one of the commandos and used it against them ,that why they shot and killed the activists. But if what you say is true then it was a paintball gun the activists seized. Hardly a good reason to shoot someone dead, becuase they had a paintball gun.

Sigh. Seriously, do I have to say it again?, they had sidearms for personal protection.

bush Baby

"I was one of the first victims to be released because I had a child. They confiscated everything, our telephones, laptops are all gone.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10206802.stm

Have the so called 'activists' been given their laptops / mobile phones / blackberrys / cameras back? If not, why not?

Selkies

Memnoch wrote: »

The activists did not have guns. Even the Israelis have stopped making this claim as it has been completely rubbished.

Even if the activists managed to grab guns OFF the Israelis, this then proves that it was the Israelis who used the guns first.

No it proves that they had guns, not that they used them.

Memnoch

Selkies wrote: »

So what exactly was their intention? Did they think that in the face of overwhelming odds they could fend off the helicopter, the gun boats and the commandos with sling shots, iron bars and knives? Did they honestly think there was more safety in confronting the thing they feared rather than surrendering?

They did not think. They thought they were going to be killed and they saw their fellow protesters get hurt and they PANICKED. The Panicked, because at 3 am in pitch darkness, the IDF, a military force with a well document disregard for civilian life...

"Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children."

I imagine/hope they were warned before they were boarded, does anyone have a video of them being warned? I know that they were asked to follow the navy to ashdod but when were they told they would be boarded if they didn't comply.

It's interesting that the video released by the Israeli's only starts in the middle of the commandos descending. Why not release the entire, unedited footage?

Then we could see how the Israelis approached "peacefully," and gave ample warning and how as you say the aid workers were just "looking for a fight." Their own reticence in releasing this information, the fact that they confisicated and DESTROYED the recording equipment and evidence of the aid workers, speaks volumes about their actions and intentions.

...but I still believe that the actions taken by those on board that ship were not the actions of peace activists but rather people looking for a fight, a fight that would end in their martyrdom.

With respect, I disagree. I believe the actions of the aid workers were that of frightened innocent civilians, who believed they were about to be killed.