Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

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

To break the ILLEGAL blockade.

Venom

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.

Hindsight has nothing to do with it when the ships in international waters were attacked by the IDF.

IrishTonyO

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".

Reported by the Israelis who also reported sophisticated weapons?

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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

The BBC have reported that those on the vessel intended to assault the commandos and we're not acting in self defence or fear for their lives?

This I'd like to see.

Foxtrol

deadtiger wrote: »

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!).

Have I argued that once?? Seriously can people actually read some of my posts before making points that are completely irrelevant? I havnt once said it wasnt in international waters. I might as well start saying that you support the rocket attacks into Israel. The post was about "unarmed civilians" and I was making the point that for all we know they each had a knife in a marine at the time. Would you like to discuss my post in context or continue to try to put words in my mouth?

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Well at least the "humanitarian" angle has been dropped.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

AFAIK there are no gardaí present at the Curragh Camp. I am fairly certain the first person I'd be greeted by would be army personnel. How can I object to being arrested, probably at gun point and detained until gardaí could take over, and claim the police should have arrested me to begin with? Please note the IDF had tried to divert the convoy unmolested, whichn would equate to being 'arrested' above.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

As above. Substitute any militarised area in the world. You don't need to be attempting to gain entry by deadly force.

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

Links, then, please.

regards,
Scofflaw

I'm amazed that if your so well informed you haven't checked these yourself

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203726.stm

Who started the violence?

This is disputed. The activists say the commandos started shooting as soon as they hit the deck. Israeli officials say the commandos fired in self-defence. Video clips show activists wielding something that looks like a baseball bat and other objects. Photographs have also been produced of metal bars and slingshots. Israel says the activists used axes, knives and fired shots from a gun taken from the soldiers.

http://edition.cnn.com/search/?query=israel%20flotilla&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=date&intl=true

The high-seas confrontation was a nightmare scenario for Israel, which insisted its soldiers were simply unprepared for what awaited them on the Mavi Marmara, the ship carrying 600 of the 700 activists headed for Gaza. Instead of carrying their regular automatic rifles, the Israelis said they went in with non-lethal paintball guns and pistols they never expected to use.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News...10/05/3105.htm

One of the Naval Special Forces soldiers, who participated in the interception of the Mavi Marama ship and sustained a broken arm while under attack by the ship’s passengers, described the events. “Each soldier who descended was taken by three or four men and they simply exploded, beating him up. They lynched us. They had metal clubs, knives, slingshots, glass bottles…At one point there was also live fire.

“I was among the last to descend, and I saw that the group was dispersed, everyone in his own corner surrounded by 3 or 4 men, I saw a soldier on the floor with two men beating him. I peeled them off of him and they came at me and began beating me with the clubs. That’s how I broke my arm. At that moment I had no weapon in my hands, like everyone else who descended on the cables empty-handed. My paintball gun was behind me.

“They came and attacked me, I brought them down to the floor, I took a few steps back, I took out my paintball gun, they came at me, and I shot at their legs. One of the clubs destroyed my paint gun and I moved on to my pistol which was the only thing to hold against them. At this point my arm no longer functioned.”

“From the opening of the corridor, they were shooting at us the entire time with live fire”

The naval soldier described how the soldiers were shot at from the entrance to the ship’s corridor: “I saw two from my group lying flat on the ground. From the opening of the corridor they were shooting at them the entire time with live fire, bullets. We identified a gun barrel, and one of us shot at the guy holding it. Afterwards we entered and he wasn’t there. About 30 men, they simply came for war. We came to straighten things out, to speak to those who went downstairs, but each of us who descended was simply attacked.”

“There were some from my group that were thrown to the lower floor, and the passengers took their equipment. They jumped to the water as a last resort. We were told that if they didn’t listen, we should shoot at their legs with the paintball gun. 'The pistol is only for if you really feel your life is in danger, which shouldn’t happen. It would be extremely abnormal.' But in the end, that is what happened.”

“We came with the intention of stopping the ship and taking it to Ashdod, and we did not come with the weapons we usually have, we came for something entirely different.”

IrishTonyO

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.

Yes but I doubt the army would travel to Wexford and shoot you there just in case

BlaasForRafa

Memnoch wrote: »

The BBC have reported that those on the vessel intended to assault the commandos and we're not acting in self defence or fear for their lives?

This I'd like to see.

The BBC reported that SOME on the Marmara were ready and preperad for a boarding.

Watch last nights newsnight, it should be on the Iplayer.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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.


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

You never answered my question. Do you believe that if the boats had gone to the Israeli port as requested then there would not be 9 families in mourning?

Roibead

If Russia had these ships coming to break a blockade of Chechnea, its military would have attacked and destroyed the ships. If the USA were blockading a portion of Mexico due to a terrorist entity there, it would have opened live fire on the ships. Only the Jew haters of the world condemn Israel with irrational and factual accusations. Let’s face it, the world is full of hypocrites and people who side with evil terrorists and their supporters to satisfy their Jew-hatred.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

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.

But you wouldn't use a knife if someone was trying to kill you with a gun?

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The BBC reported that SOME on the Marmara were ready and preperad for a boarding.

Watch last nights newsnight, it should be on the Iplayer.

Can't access Iplayer in Dublin.

The Israeli's claim that they were "ready" for a boarding. I've not seen any independent source legitimise these claims.

And as I've already said, once the aid workers thought they were about to be attacked and killed, I'm sure they picked up whatever they could find in order to defend themselves.

dlofnep

Why has Israel confiscated footage from the activists? Why has Israel only released edited videos? These are questions everyone should be asking. It's quite clear that they are attempting to portray a skewed view of events.

alastair

Roibead wrote: »

Only the Jew haters of the world condemn Israel with irrational and factual accusations.

wow!

prinz

doncarlos wrote: »

But you wouldn't use a knife if someone was trying to kill you with a gun?

You have your timeline mixed up again. The soldiers didn't hit the deck ready to start killing people.

droidus

lol I'd like to see ships come to break a blockade of Chechnya, seeing as its landlocked, and Im not sure that even the Russians would fire on Fitzcarraldo.

IrishTonyO

doncarlos wrote: »

But you wouldn't use a knife if someone was trying to kill you with a gun?

If someone is trying to kill me as you say, of course I would use anything I could find rather than sit there and be shot maybe prinz would just roll over

doncarlos

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm amazed that if your so well informed you haven't checked these yourself

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203726.stm



http://edition.cnn.com/search/?query=israel%20flotilla&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=date&intl=true


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News...10/05/3105.htm

All those links came from Israeli reports. Any unbiased ones?

sensibleken

Roibead wrote: »

If Russia had these ships coming to break a blockade of Chechnea, its military would have attacked and destroyed the ships. If the USA were blockading a portion of Mexico due to a terrorist entity there, it would have opened live fire on the ships. Only the Jew haters of the world condemn Israel with irrational and factual accusations. Let’s face it, the world is full of hypocrites and people who side with evil terrorists and their supporters to satisfy their Jew-hatred.

do not play the anti-semitic card. its rediculous. nearly every country has condemned the actions for a start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash

the anti semetic arguement suggests to me that you have nothing factual to argue with

doncarlos

IrishTonyO wrote: »

If someone is trying to kill me as you say, of course I would use anything I could find rather than sit there and be shot

Me too. But prinz would only defend himself if he was going to be stabbed not if he was going to get shot. I'm confused

Foxtrol

dlofnep wrote: »

Why has Israel confiscated footage from the activists? Why has Israel only released edited videos? These are questions everyone should be asking. It's quite clear that they are attempting to portray a skewed view of events.

Obviously propaganda. Both sides are at it and Israel are making sure the Flotilla only have word of mouth versus their video evidence. No one can believe that if the Flotilla had evidence of some people on the boat with weapons would release it, just like no one can expect Israel to release anything of them being heavy handed.

Zulu

prinz wrote: »

You have your timeline mixed up again. The soldiers didn't hit the deck ready to start killing people.

Quite, the stories suggest they started killing people before they hit the deck.

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

You have your timeline mixed up again. The soldiers didn't hit the deck ready to start killing people.

Have you seen the complete unedited and time-stamped video. How do you know what happened before the video started rolling when nobody else in the world does apart from those on the boats and the IDF

Foxtrol

doncarlos wrote: »

All those links came from Israeli reports. Any unbiased ones?

Where would you possibly find an unbiased party in this? Every bit of evidience will be tainted to some degree

prinz

doncarlos wrote: »

Me too. But prinz would only defend himself if he was going to be stabbed not if he was going to get shot. I'm confused

I tend not to attack people first, that's the difference. I cannot rely on a defence of "I thought he was going to kill me" simply if someone is an armed soldier/police officer.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

You never answered my question. Do you believe that if the boats had gone to the Israeli port as requested then there would not be 9 families in mourning?

This is a ridiculous and in fact idiotic question. You can keep going one step back to reach a point you are more comfortable with...

for example I could answer your point above with...

If the Israeli's hadn't set up an illegal blockade or starved the palestinians of ESSENTIAL aid supplies for the past three years there would have been no need for anyone to run the blockade.

or with the fact that

if they HAD gone to Ashod, much of the aid would not have reached the Palestinian people. Because the Israelis arbitarily decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't, with banned items including, chocolate, pasta, notebooks, pencils etc etc etc.

Then you would start about the Hamas rockets...

and I would have to respond that collective punishment of a civilian population is illegal under the geneva convention... and round and round it goes...

So instead of repeatedly trying to divert the discussion... why don't you show me a SINGLE action by the aid workers that was illegal?

I've demonstrated clearly how the Israelis have acted illegally and indeed CRIMINALLY every single step of the way. The blame therefore, lies ENTIRELY, with them.

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

Where would you possibly find an unbiased party in this? Every bit of evidience will be tainted to some degree

You can't but you are presenting Israeli reports as facts

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

Quite, the stories suggest they started killing people before they hit the deck.

Completely unbiased of course. Any back up?

doncarlos wrote: »

Have you seen the complete unedited and time-stamped video. How do you know what happened before the video started rolling when nobody else in the world does apart from those on the boats and the IDF

Well those on the ship didn't mention it either. The live broadcast as the boarding occured for example... did it slip his mind to say 'by the way they are already killing people'?

alastair

prinz wrote: »

I tend not to attack people first, that's the difference. I cannot rely on a defence of "I thought he was going to kill me" simply if someone is an armed soldier/police officer.

You discount the statements that the other ships' passengers were subjected to violent (if non-lethal) assault from the IDF without provocation? Because why would you expect different on this ship?