Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Does the footage released by the Isreali govenrment remind people of the type of footage people bring up when they say they have proof of UFOs?

I'm refering to the constantly moving camera, which in this case is quite unnatural, and kind of weird picture quality. Also some of the actual footage just seems a bit weird to me. Something I just can't put my finger on.

Can anyone with camera experience explain what type of camera they may have been using and the cause of these types of effects?

TBH I wouldn't say the footage is fake. Its incomplete and very selectively edited with the sound removed in a lot of the cases.

We are never going to see the unedited footage ever. Probability is that small camcorders or video functions on mobile phones was used.

Unless someone hid a memory stick somewhere the sun doesn't shine and no body cavity searches were enacted I don't think we will see any further footage from the protesters point of view that has not been edited to slant towards the official Israeli narrative of the chain of events.

paulaa

I saw this on another forum about the legalities of what happened. Forgive the cut and paste and sorry if this has been posted before

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 seems to be the most authoritative document for dealing with this incident

.

SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION

SECTION I : BASIC RULES

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations.

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(b) submit to identification and inspection when required.

But,

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked

Although

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14...e!OpenDocument

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

there were 6 ships of course they are different stories about what happened during the storming, as there we 6 separate incidents. Have to say I am unemployed at the moment, and not funds rich but after this I will be making my first donation to this cause

I'd expect far more than 6 variations anyway since 600 people on the first ship can't possibly have all seen what was happening on deck or wherever the fighting took place. So if we actually do get hundreds of almost identical stories then someone is fibbing.

IrishTonyO

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Does the footage released by the Isreali govenrment remind people of the type of footage people bring up when they say they have proof of UFOs?

I'm refering to the constantly moving camera, which in this case is quite unnatural, and kind of weird picture quality. Also some of the actual footage just seems a bit weird to me. Something I just can't put my finger on.

Can anyone with camera experience explain what type of camera they may have been using and the cause of these types of effects?

it is shot with night vision, it was completely dark at the time

droidus

Opinion on the videos from Israel

Gaza flotilla | Things the IDF doesn’t want us to know

The videos released by IDF from the Mavi Marmara are controlling the news cycle in Israel for the past 48 hours. Their effect has been tremendous: They silenced all questions on the operation, and had the public rally behind the government and the army, as the Maariv poll shows. They made Israelis go out to the streets, demonstrating in front of the Turkish Embassy and having smaller rallies around the country.

But Incredible as it may seem, it’s been almost three days since the army raided the ship, and we know nothing on the attack itself, except for the fact that some of the men on the Mavi Marmara stormed the soldiers as they descended from the helicopter to the upper deck. We also have reason to believe that this attack was planned in advance, but that there were no firearms involved.

In other words, we only know what Israel wanted us to know.

At this point it is extremely important to say what we don’t know: We don’t know the names and nationality of the killed passengers (UPDATE: Turkey released some details). we don’t know for sure how many people were injured. We don’t know where they were killed, when, and how they died. we don’t know if and when people were given medical treatment. There were security cameras on deck, but Israel doesn’t show us what they filmed, except for the material which serves its purposes. The night vision clips released by the army end just before the shooting begins.

We don’t know what happened before the civilians attacked the commandos. There were passengers claiming soldiers opened fire before they even boarded the ship, but we don’t know if that’s true.

Most important, we don’t know anything about the battle itself – if it was a battle. It seems that it was a long one, since we have short recording, in which you can hear Israeli MK Hanin Zoabi calling for help and begging the soldiers in Hebrew and English to stop shooting (It’s the second clip on this page). At this time there were already passengers hurt, and one can assume that the attack on the soldiers ended. But the shooting went on.

Some of this information could have been available had the IDF not confiscated all material from the Mavi Marmara. What’s even worse is that the army is now editing the films and releasing it in a way which suits its own narrative. This film, shot from the upper deck, seems to have been taken by a camera crew or a passenger on board the ship. The film embedded below, showing the passengers getting ready for the Israeli attack was taken from the ship’s security camera.

Here is a good post regarding the IDF clips on the New York Times lede blog. Robert Mackey notes in it that the images the army released lack context. My only remark is that they were deliberately taken out of context.

The way Israel is withholding information is very troubling. If the army has nothing to hide, why not release the material? Naturally, Israel is also refusing to address the bigger questions, such as why the flotilla was attacked in international waters, and if so, whether the passengers actually had the right to resist the soldiers’ attempt to board their vessel.

The worse effect of this PR war is on the Israeli public, which now views the entire flotilla as a terrorist enterprise. One can see the effect of this nationalistic mood in the way the members of Knesset almost physically attacked MK Zoabi today (video here). In fact, the government’s campaign was so successful, many protested the release of the detained passengers, claiming “the terrorists” should be “brought to justice”.

All this leads to the conclusion that only an internationally led investigation might shed some light on the events on the Mavi Marmara. Even so, the chances the IDF will give full access to the materials and soldiers are slim at best.

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=2909

This is the same old story from the IDF. We've seen it time and again, most recently during the assault on gaza where old video footage was used to justify an attack on the UN.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

I'd expect far more than 6 variations anyway since 600 people on the first ship can't possibly have all seen what was happening on deck or wherever the fighting took place. So if we actually do get hundreds of almost identical stories then someone is fibbing.

You are unreal, if people give the same story they are lying? what sort of statement is that, you previously were saying the statements were inconsistent and you didn't believe them, so in summary if they have different stories they are lying, if they have the same story they are lying!!!!
Would you care to comment on the video of the interview with the journalist who was on the deck at the time?????

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

I'd expect far more than 6 variations anyway since 600 people on the first ship can't possibly have all seen what was happening on deck or wherever the fighting took place. So if we actually do get hundreds of almost identical stories then someone is fibbing.

Why do you keep dodging the question???

Yes or no, are all those that have been interviewed so far liars?

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats a strawman argument. For instance what about the germans kicked out of Konigsberg, East Prussia and Silesia by the Russians and Poles after world war 2, do they have a right of return?

We've moved on and been warned about going off-topic.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

On the videos I have seen there are sticks being used and what appear to be metal bars from railing on the deck. But I have seen no video evidence of knives being used.

In one of the first vids that appeared, I think from turkish tv there was a soldier being chased and clubbed and he runs to a (possibly blocked) doorway then gets knifed - it was only visible when slowed down which I think one of the tv channels did before it ended up on youtube.

As others have said I would expect people to grab what's on hand to repel boarders.

Except those metal bars did not really just happen to be on hand as such, they must have been cut from the railings in advance.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

In one of the first vids that appeared, I think from turkish tv there was a soldier being chased and clubbed and he runs to a (possibly blocked) doorway then gets knifed - it was only visible when slowed down which I think one of the tv channels did before it ended up on youtube.



Except those metal bars did not really just happen to be on hand as such, they must have been cut from the railings in advance.

According to the journalists, they saw the Israelis first before midnight, the attack didn't happen until 4.20am, even the video released by the Israelis show this, so of course they had plenty of time to try and get some things to repel a boarding as was their right

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You are unreal, if people give the same story they are lying? what sort of statement is that, you previously were saying the statements were inconsistent and you didn't believe them, so in summary if they have different stories they are lying, if they have the same story they are lying!!!!
Would you care to comment on the video of the interview with the journalist who was on the deck at the time?????

You honestly want to tell me all 600 saw the same thing? It would be physically impossible. There must be variations in their story, that is all I am saying.

you previously were saying the statements were inconsistent and you didn't believe them

No I was saying some of their statements are inconsistent with the video evidence, not that they were inconsistent with each other.

paulaa

Was this really necessary ?

A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency. (cont)

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Media/american-killed-gaza-aid-flotilla/story?id=10814848

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

You honestly want to tell me all 600 saw the same thing? It would be physically impossible. There must be variations in their story, that is all I am saying.



No I was saying some of their statements are inconsistent with the video evidence, not that they were inconsistent with each other.

so what are your comments on the interview with the journalist who was on board? You have commented on all other videos posted so far.

Memnoch

IrishTonyO wrote: »

so what are your comments on the interview with the journalist who was on board? You have commented on all other videos posted so far.

The only comment he can make is to accuse the journalist of lying. This is why the Israelis kept these people captive for 3 days... so that their PR machine and supporters could try and create an alternative reality.

But we know the truth now.

1) The Israelis didn't just have paint ball guns when they first boarded the ships. They also had machine guns and pistols.

2) The Israelis fired FIRST and with Live ammo, before a single soldier boarded the lead ship.

3) The people on board the ship, thought they we're going to be killed and so fought the boarding commandos in desperate self-defence.

Cannibal Ox

paulaa wrote: »

I saw this on another forum about the legalities of what happened. Forgive the cut and paste and sorry if this has been posted before

The San Remo Manual is, afaik, non-binding, and is only an amalgamation of previous treaties some, if not most, of which haven't been signed or ratified by the Israelis. I think the Convention on the High Seas (direct link to .pdf file) is the relevant piece, specifically articles 14-21 and 22. I think, I'm still trying to figure out what the Israeli's have and haven't signed/ratified.

IrishTonyO

Interesting article in the NY Times about Israel being it's own worst enemy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03kristof.html

paulaa

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The San Remo Manual is, afaik, non-binding, and is only an amalgamation of previous treaties some, if not most, of which haven't been signed or ratified by the Israelis. I think the Convention on the High Seas (direct link to .pdf file) is the relevant piece, specifically articles 14-21 and 22. I think, I'm still trying to figure out what the Israeli's have and haven't signed/ratified.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look through it later

paulaa

For anyone interested


Date(s): Saturday, 5 Jun 2010

Time(s): 2:00PM

Area: Dublin

Venue: The Garden of Remembrance, Parnell Sq


http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/ipsc/displayEvent.php?eventID=885

Manic Moran

Positions are not "inverted" here - apologists for Israel are claiming a legal position they deny otherwise, in the hopes that it will cover the illegality of their actions. If we allow them (and you) that benefit, then you must necessarily accept all the corollaries - that is, that Israeli actions elsewhere are illegal.

With respect, in all the discussions I've participated in on here over the years as regards the legality of Israel's actions in Gaza, I have almost always focused on the adherence to and practicality of the laws of warfare. (Mainly because it's what I know). I have never subscribed to Israel's 'not in an armed conflict' theory, and indeed, generally keep out of the higher political questions which are above those of the conduct of the various operations.

This position of armed conflict has never, to my recollection, been disputed by the contra-Israeli posters here, and indeed has been used repeatedly to buttress arguments upon others. They have cemented their official position on the matter just as much as Israel has, and now that there is finally a statement from Israel supporting their viewpoint, they are, instead of storing it for future reference, ignoring and discounting that statement because it is inconvenient for the matter at hand.

It's interesting to contrast, in this context, the widely expressed view that the flotilla should have meekly accepted the Israelis' illegal enforcement of an illegal blockade with some of the long and well established constitutional rights of US citizens in the face of unlawful police arrest, search & seizure:

I would refer you to my post here on this exact matter:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66169226&highlight=arrest#post66169226

Would they really release a body that would prove them guilty?

I think people are overstating the forensic qualities of just a body. Sure, it could be an impact from above from a helicopter. Or a higher deck. Or a stairwell. Or maybe he was bending over at the time. Probably the only source is going to be the Israeli thermal camera footage, as it tends to show most of the ship at any one time, will show still bodies, and should show pools of blood.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Israeli's have and haven't signed/ratified.

I believe there are a number of treaties on warfare which the US has not officially ratified, but it still considers itself bound by. I don't recall any prior claims by Israel along the lines of "We didn't sign it, so we're not bound by it", acting in accordance is usually good enough.

NTM

bambooze

Memnoch wrote: »

The only comment he can make is to accuse the journalist of lying. This is why the Israelis kept these people captive for 3 days... so that their PR machine and supporters could try and create an alternative reality.

But we know the truth now.

1) The Israelis didn't just have paint ball guns when they first boarded the ships. They also had machine guns and pistols.

2) The Israelis fired FIRST and with Live ammo, before a single soldier boarded the lead ship.

3) The people on board the ship, thought they we're going to be killed and so fought the boarding commandos in desperate self-defence.

He actually says tear gas and rubber coated bullets were fired first. Not live amo, which is to be expected in such a situation before the commandos landed.

I'm also not sure how he could know which were rubber coated bullets and which were live anyway since both can be fired from the same gun and it was dark and presumably chaotic at the time. Is the difference obvious?

"live bullets came roughly 5 mins after" he says. So what happened during those 5 mins?

Also how did he know that the person shot on top of the head was not shot with a rubber coated bullet? I'd imagine one of those in the top of the head at fairly close range would drop anyone, possibly killing them. Wikpedia does in fact say "Lethal injuries are often the result of head injuries caused by misuse."

I noticed he does say they used metal bars from the railings.

He also clearly says he didn't see everything, he's not saying that certain things israel claims didn't happen, for example the soldiers guns being taken or the knives being used.

doncarlos

Bambooze, I'll ask again as you either missed my question or decided to ignore it.

doncarlos wrote: »

Why do you keep dodging the question???

Yes or no, are all those that have been interviewed so far liars?

Memnoch

bambooze wrote: »

He actually says tear gas and rubber coated bullets were fired first. Not live amo, which is to be expected in such a situation before the commandos landed.

I'm also not sure how he could know which were rubber coated bullets and which were live anyway since both can be fired from the same gun and it was dark and presumably chaotic at the time. Is the difference obvious?

"live bullets came roughly 5 mins after" he says. So what happened during those 5 mins?

Also how did he know that the person shot on top of the head was not shot with a rubber coated bullet? I'd imagine one of those in the top of the head at fairly close range would drop anyone, possibly killing them. Wikpedia does in fact say "Lethal injuries are often the result of head injuries caused by misuse."

Well if the Israelis shot and killed people on board the ship before they landed it doesn't really matter whether it was rubber bullets or live ammo. It completely negates the idea that the Israeli's only killed people BECAUSE their commandos were attacked first.

To the people on the ship, once they see someone shot dead in the head, they are obviously going to try and defend themselves when commandos drop in the middle of them.

As for the "five" minutes. I'm only speculating here, but it looks like the Israelis started with tear gas canisters, sound grenades and rubber bullets. I've read reports that when the helicopters tried to land protesters stood under them to prevent them from doing so. I'm guessing this is when the Israeli's opened up with the more lethal weaponry.

I don't know how he makes those distinctions, but I have no reason to doubt his version of events since he is an international journalist and was there to witness what happened first hand.

He seems pretty well informed as he was able to talk about flash bangs, sound grenades and the different type of bullets. My guess is that he's a seasoned war reporter and has gotten used to telling the difference in these things.

I noticed he does say they used metal bars from the railings.

He also clearly says he didn't see everything, he's not saying that certain things israel claims didn't happen, for example the soldiers guns being taken or the knives being used.

I think everyone here has accepted that the protesters used whatever they could find iron bars, wooden bars. Not sure about the knives yet. And I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to wrestle guns away from the commandos who had already killed some of them.

However, I'll repeat again...

We know now three important facts that dispute the Israeli version of events.

1) They didn't just use paint guns when boarding they also had machine guns and pistols. (as per the interview with the American ambassador)

2) They shot and killed people before any commandos landed.

3) The protesters had good reason to believe they were going to be killed. And were acting entirely in self-defence

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, in all the discussions I've participated in on here over the years as regards the legality of Israel's actions in Gaza, I have almost always focused on the adherence to and practicality of the laws of warfare. (Mainly because it's what I know). I have never subscribed to Israel's 'not in an armed conflict' theory, and indeed, generally keep out of the higher political questions which are above those of the conduct of the various operations.

This position of armed conflict has never, to my recollection, been disputed by the contra-Israeli posters here, and indeed has been used repeatedly to buttress arguments upon others. They have cemented their official position on the matter just as much as Israel has, and now that there is finally a statement from Israel supporting their viewpoint, they are, instead of storing it for future reference, ignoring and discounting that statement because it is inconvenient for the matter at hand.

Again, no. If you have always viewed it as being a state of armed conflict, that's fine, but I haven't assumed any hypocrisy on your part. I've pointed out that Israel always claims not to be in a state of armed conflict, because there are duties and legalities attendant on that status that she wishes to avoid. It's not germane whether you have accepted and repeated Israel's view on the matter - you're not on trial here.

Statements:

1. Israel has always claimed not to be in a state of armed conflict.

2. On this occasion, the action taken by Israel is only legal if they are in a state of armed conflict.

3. Israel's supporters are suggesting that Israel is in a state of armed conflict (cf Joe Biden), because this legalises the action taken.

4. But nothing has changed, and Israel has not officially declared itself to be in a state of armed conflict, nor accepted the duties and legalities attendant on that status.

5. It's not going to wash anyway, because retroactively declaring yourself in a state of armed conflict to justify an illegal action isn't legal anyway.

So I'm afraid it doesn't really matter what you say, as long as Israel was not officially in a state of armed conflict it cannot use the existence of a state of armed conflict to justify its actions.

Sure, the statement may be used against it at some future point - but it's irrelevant right now, because Israel couldn't retroactively declare itself in a state of armed conflict anyway. At the time of the incident, Israel was sticking to the line that it was not involved in an armed conflict, and that's all there is to that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bambooze

doncarlos wrote: »

Bambooze, I'll ask again as you either missed my question or decided to ignore it.

I already said some of them are fibbing since their claims contradict what is clear in the vids, others simply didnt see all that was going on which is to be expected so as long as they don't make claims based on rumours rather than what they actually saw then its fine. I can't possibly comment on all since I've only seen reports from 3 or 4.

doncarlos

bambooze wrote: »

I already said some of them are fibbing since their claims contradict what is clear in the vids, others simply didnt see all that was going on which is to be expected so as long as they don't make claims based on rumours rather than what they actually saw then its fine. I can't possibly comment on all since I've only seen reports from 3 or 4.

But you've only seen 3 or 4 minutes and this seems good enough to throw out EVERY eye witness report that doesn't agree with what the IDF say.

Is there anything that would change your mind or will you always believe the IDF and their highly edited video?

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

I already said some of them are fibbing since their claims contradict what is clear in the vids, others simply didnt see all that was going on which is to be expected so as long as they don't make claims based on rumours rather than what they actually saw then its fine. I can't possibly comment on all since I've only seen reports from 3 or 4.

Again there were 6 ships attacked, you are comparing all 6 events to a few mins of video taken from one ship, now that's not logical is it?

gandalf

bambooze strikes me as a very intelligent contributor to this thread and I am sure that he will even agree that the IDF is only going to release footage that is beneficial to their version of events.

bambooze

Memnoch wrote: »

1) They didn't just use paint guns when boarding they also had machine guns and pistols. (as per the interview with the American ambassador)

2) They shot and killed people before any commandos landed.

3) The protesters had good reason to believe they were going to be killed. And were acting entirely in self-defence

1) It was said right from the start they had sidearms as well as paintball guns when they landed. I don't know anything about machine guns - is it really likely these commandos were lugging machine guns when they boarded? What on earth would they do with those in a close combat or crowd control situation?

2) Yes possibly someone was killed before landing, possibly with rubber coated bullets but since they are supposed to be non-lethal crowd control weapons was the intent really to kill or just disable? (perhaps he was armed with something?) Probably just a f#ckup since it makes little sense to go killing people first before boarding.. doesn't help the guy with his head caved in though.

3) Then perhaps they should have turned back when warned? They did prepare for battle with metal bars etc before the shooting began.

bambooze

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Again there were 6 ships attacked, you are comparing all 6 events to a few mins of video taken from one ship, now that's not logical is it?

Not sure I follow.. afaik there was only fighting on the first ship, the one that had most of the people on. I haven't heard anything about the others.

IrishTonyO

bambooze wrote: »

Not sure I follow.. afaik there was only fighting on the first ship, the one that had most of the people on. I haven't heard anything about the others.

Some of statements made in the media by people on board the ships were made by people not on the lead vessel and you have tried to counter their statements saying the video (from the lead ship) does not show this