Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Effectively it combined elements of both.

But the Official Israeli spokesmen were claiming it was a Policing operation! Are you saying they lied on the telly!!! Surely not he seemed like such a nice cleancut type of chap!

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

Effectively it combined elements of both.

Yes, effectively it did - but using military force against civilians is generally illegal, so it shouldn't have done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

bush Baby wrote: »

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?

Because evidence is inconvenient, but of course the Israelis have NOTHING to hide.

gandalf

bush Baby wrote: »

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?

Because they are Hamas propaganda delivery devices

Selkies

wes wrote: »

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

Yes they use human shields, they are forbidden from doing so but it still goes on on occasion, can you please provide proof that they use children?

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That was a soldier on the rear deck of the ship who landed after the troops landed on the upper forward deck of the ship.

If the bridge had been secured quickly then there would have been no need to land anyone on the rear deck of the ship at all. Once reports were made that activists were firing guns then its logical to land troops with protection. Also, it was a suppressed Uzi not a silenced Uzi.

sorry what reports were made that activist were firing? where did you get this inside info from?

BlaasForRafa

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

That is your view, I don't agree with it.

I don't think all the people on that ship were frightened, innocent or panicked. I think some were prepared and attacked the commandos, the footage from both turkish and israeli sources supports that.

20Cent

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That is your view, I don't agree with it.

I don't think all the people on that ship were frightened, innocent or panicked. I think some were prepared and attacked the commandos, the footage from both turkish and israeli sources supports that.

Didn't do a very good job of it then did they?

alastair

Selkies wrote: »

Yes they use human shields, they are forbidden from doing so but it still goes on on occasion, can you please provide proof that they use children?

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That is your view, I don't agree with it.

I don't think all the people on that ship were frightened, innocent or panicked. I think some were prepared and attacked the commandos, the footage from both turkish and israeli sources supports that.

It ABSOLUTELY does not. That is merely your spin on it.

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I already said I don't think they should have landed on the ship at all.

Well then that's the end of the argument, they shouldn't have been there simple, anything else happened as a result of them being there

BlaasForRafa

IrishTonyO wrote: »

sorry what reports were made that activist were firing? where did you get this inside info from?

The Israeli commandos had guns taken from them and then fired at them, this has been reported on numerous sources. They then asked for permission to fire back, again this has been widely reported, it is not "inside info".

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That is your view, I don't agree with it.

I don't think all the people on that ship were frightened, innocent or panicked. I think some were prepared and attacked the commandos, the footage from both turkish and israeli sources supports that.

It's impressive that you can read minds via video. What particular elements do you believe support your interpretation?

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Israeli commandos had guns taken from them and then fired at them, this has been reported on numerous sources. They then asked for permission to fire back, again this has been widely reported, it is not "inside info".

Links, then, please.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Memnoch wrote: »

It ABSOLUTELY does not. That is merely your spin on it.

Its not my spin on it, the BBC have reported it, unless you are calling the BBC's integrity into question as well?

Foxtrol

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Well then that's the end of the argument, they shouldn't have been there simple, anything else happened as a result of them being there

Im sure in Israeli eyes they had no right to attempt to run the blockade

IrishTonyO

Selkies wrote: »

"Here lie the bones of Solomon Gray,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

Why did aid workers feel that they would be more useful dead?

Well thankfully not all people think like you, if they did we would all live in dictatorships afraid to say boo.

droidus

At 2:30AM on July 18, 1947, a half day before the Exodus was scheduled to reach the shores of the land of Israel, it was rammed by British destroyers. At the time it was 20 miles from the port of Jaffa. The British succeeded in getting 50 soldiers on board in the midst of smoke bombs and tear gas grenades in order to capture the pilothouse. This plan failed because the ship’s captain piloted it from a second pilot house. The British were met with weapons prepared in advance and [the ship's passengers] opened fire. After a fierce struggle that resulted in three deaths including the first mate and tens of wounded, the ship’s captain, Yossi Harel, surrendered and the ship was brought to Haifa, where the passengers were forcibly boarded onto vessels and deported.

Echoes of Raid on ‘Exodus’ Ship in 1947

wes

Selkies wrote: »

Yes they use human shields, they are forbidden from doing so but it still goes on on occasion, can you please provide proof that they use children?

Lots of things are forbidden for the IDF to do, but they have a habit of doing it in anyways.

Quick example:
B'Tselem: IDF used Palestinian girl as human shield in Nablus

IrishTonyO

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They took at least two guns off the commandos. And it does in no way mean that the israelis used the guns first, they could have taken them from the troops holsters. seriously, use some common sense.

and you know this how?

Zulu

Selkies wrote: »

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

Yea, thats the burning issues alright. :rolleyes:

What kind of person shoots dead an unarmed civilian?

What kind of person condons the shooting dead of unarmed civilians??

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, effectively it did - but using military force against civilians is generally illegal, so it shouldn't have done.
cordially,
Scofflaw

That's all well and good in hindsight but it becomes difficult in practice when you are intent on breaking a blockade in a militarised area. If I try to get into the Curragh Camp chances are it won't be unarmed gardaí who will stop me first but armed soldiers.

Foxtrol

Zulu wrote: »

Yea, thats the burning issues alright. :rolleyes:

What kind of person shoots dead an unarmed civilian?

What kind of person condons the shooting dead of unarmed civilians??

For all we know those who were shot could have each had a knife in a commando at the time. This is not Tiananmen Square, no matter how certain people here want to believe it was

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

What kind of person shoots dead an unarmed civilian?

Who says all those killed were unarmed? If someone tries to kill me with a dagger sure as hell if I had a weapon I'd use it.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

That's all well and good in hindsight but it becomes difficult in practice when you are intent on breaking a blockade in a militarised area.

But they weren't in a militarised area they were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS (I bolded that in case you missed it ).

prinz

deadtiger wrote: »

But they weren't in a militarised area they were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS (I bolded that in case you missed it ).

They made clear their intentions to break the blockade and refused to divert or stop.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

That's all well and good in hindsight but it becomes difficult in practice when you are intent on breaking a blockade in a militarised area. If I try to get into the Curragh Camp chances are it won't be unarmed gardaí who will stop me first but armed soldiers.

No, that doesn't wash - this was quite clearly a legal or PR-style challenge to the blockade by unarmed ships carrying civilians - and not the first either:

Some previous flotillas have been allowed to reach Gaza, others have been turned round and sent back. It is not clear why this latest one was greeted by a commando-style raid.

If you try to break into the Curragh Camp, unarmed, then you will be arrested. If you try to attack the Camp you will be shot. One is a military situation, the other a police situation. Protesters at Greenham Common were not shot, nor were those who broke into Shannon.

As I said, the problem here is that the vessels being used to "break the blockade" aren't trying to break it by deadly force, but by PR pressure, and therefore this was not a military situation.

cordially,
scofflaw

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is not Tiananmen Square, no matter how certain people here want to believe it was

No your right its not.

It was.................................................cmon you already know the answer...........................
....
....
....International Waters

Whether you agree with the Chinese or not Tiananmen Square was and is part of the Soverign Territory of China. Therefore their military are allowed to be there and to take action there (even though it was wrong!).

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

No the aid workers decided to run the blockade.

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:

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?

Can we please stop with the random ridiculous analogies and stick to the facts at hand because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'm not going to answer every single "what if" that you can conjure up because frankly there is no end to that.

Look, both sides made CHOICES. The difference is that EVERY SINGLE CHOICE made by the IDF in THIS INCIDENT was ILLEGAL. The aid workers at NO point committed a SINGLE ILLEGAL ACT. The ship was THEIR property, in INTERNATIONAL waters and EVEN if we believe the Israeli version of events (which I do not) they were perfectly entitled to defend it (and I believe they were genuinely in fear for their lives).

Your intention therefore to focus on the LEGAL actions of the protesters rather than the illegal and criminal actions of the IDF at every single step is highly disingenuous and as has been repeatedly pointed out is tantamount to blaming the victim.

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

Yes. Since they acted illegally every single step of the way. I do. Unreservedly.

FunnyStuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZ_dkhwSGk

Only video i've been able to find with the warning