Elements within the charity supported jihadi operations in the 1990s, Bruguiere said, before adding: "I don't know whether they continued to do so" more recently.
Out of curiosity, why create a whole thread for this? There is already one open, with an active discussion.
Anyway... interesting, but seemingly irrelevant, if for nothing but the decade in between then... and now.
sexiest_hero wrote:I don't care who they had ties to years ago. if they had no weapons, and the people on board were just protesters, it's still murder.
So, you're saying terrorists without guns, arent terrorists anymore?
It sucks some of them died, but once they started swinging metal pipes- they escalated things. Once they took the soldiers side arms- they escalated it to a lethal level. They made poor choices too- hence they arent innocent victims.
Mistress of minis wrote:So, you're saying terrorists without guns, arent terrorists anymore?
It sucks some of them died, but once they started swinging metal pipes- they escalated things. Once they took the soldiers side arms- they escalated it to a lethal level. They made poor choices too- hence they arent innocent victims.
DAMMIT!
So that must mean... OMG... the U.S. are terrorists as well. So many examples to choose from, SO MANY EXAMPLES.
Dropping commandos into an angry mob of demonstrators is a bad idea. I should just make a picture explaining that. Better yet, one is already made!
From what I read, they certainly had weapons. The report I read said they had clubs, knives, and tried to take guns from soldiers. And that at least ten soldiers were injured as well.
Trying to go through a blockade is more or less stupid. Especially with a country known not for it's sense of humour. When you have people trying to run a blockade, and your blockade is to weaken militant groups (Regardless of how effective it is. It might be people smuggling televisions in for the public, it might be also very well be guns for insurgents) you don't take chances. You stop them, period.
This from the man who is well versed in dealing with terrorists.
So lets get this straight, the accusation comes from the evidence that members of a jihadist group were also members of the IHH. Ok. Let us assume this is exactly true, a given.
If you were a terrorist, you would want a cover identity. Unless terrorists write down 'terrorist' on their documentation under the heading of occupation. Now if you have a cover identity would you tell your co-workers what it was?
This evidence, even if assumed true means nothing.
As for funding, charities accept donations from everywhere, they don't ask where a donation comes from, nor do they need to, nor often can they.
Let us put the boot on the other foot, and assume we are talking about a group myself and others are more vocally opposed to. Assuming an IRA terrorist joined a charity, got a job, told noone what he was, raised some funding in his local community, and arranged for a friend who he knew was also an IRA member to get a job from the inside. Does this mean the charity is a front for terror? No it doesnt. It's deep cover.
RIP all the foreign aid workers who have been gunned down by the IDF over the years; and everytime, Israel says it's troops weren't to blame, it was all a tragic accident, etc... All that does is make the IDF look incompetent.
It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.
I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.
Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.
Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.
Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.
J.Black wrote:I believe Egypt has opened it's border crossing (Rafah) to allow aid in in light of what happened earlier in the week.
One of the few positive results of Hamas' election was the removal of EU BAM (in practical terms an extension of the Israeli state) from control of the crossing; leaving it entirely in Egyptian hands. Well, Egyptian and PA hands, but the PA is never going to opt for the closure of a Gaza border, given the current conditions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote:
When was it declared legal
The rules governing legal blockades are very open-ended. Technically, a physical blockade cannot be established in international waters, but states have the freedom to intercept any vessel which they believe to be intent on running a blockade, regardless of its actual location. Conceivably the Israelis could have boarded the flotilla as soon as it entered international waters; citing the advertised intent to break the blockade. Obviously the further from the blockade the ship happens to be, the more likely that its interception will be contested by the flag flown by the vessel.
What dogma says, but to give you a rough date, pretty much since the Civil War. The union regularly boarded ships that on the high seas that were suspected of planning to run the blockade.
Let's put it this way: if there had been a ship seeking to deliver relief supplies to the Tamil, Sri Lanka could intercept it in international waters, and nobody would really say anything. The only reason the legality of the blockade is seriously questioned (outside of the perennial challenges against blockades at all) is because Israel is involved.
The main question of fact at this point is if the IDF or the crew used deadly force first. And frankly, the way the IDF boarded isn't a factor. In these situations, you heave to when ordered.
dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.
Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?
dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.
Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?
Inspection means a lot of things including removing contraband, contraband insides such items as livestock, tinned food, fresh fruit, meat and vegetables, tools etc. Basic anything likely to give the people of Gaza a measure of sustainability. it is also delayed to a trickle so that the people are constantly in need. They shouldnt pay those games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.
Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.
blockades are by definition illegal. Embargos are lergal.
As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.
The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.
In international affairs, the link between lawfullness and goodness is tenous at best.
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal.
Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal.
boarding a ship to inspect it is legal.
shooting people that resist is not great, but legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.
The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.
There are lot of reasons they don't return cameras. If they showed even one act that went over the line (say, a stray shot hitting a non-violent person), it could cause panic. And not to be too stereotypical, but the Middle East hasn't shown the greatest ability to apply context to images (see the mohammed cartoons). I don't blame Israel for keeping the footage.
Polonius wrote:In international affairs, the link between lawfullness and goodness is tenous at best.
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal.
Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal.
boarding a ship to inspect it is legal.
shooting people that resist is not great, but legal.
So wrong. Where do you get your dogma from?
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad. Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.
Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal. Ish. You cannot transport the good through israeli territory without their permission.
Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal. you got this bit right. However the ports in Gaza are legally open according to the government of the region. Just not their oppressors.
boarding a ship to inspect it is legal. Only in your own territorial waters.
shooting people that resist is not great, but legal. Not if the ship was illegally boarded, and also not if they were not causing immediate severe risk of a lawful inspection. This normally includes fair warnings etc. we know ths ship was boarded illegally, only the most hair brained propoganda swallowers can fail to see that. As for puting soldiers at risk, thats irrelevant if thery shouldnt be there. But ignoring that for now we have conflicting stories. One side has witnesses who are knwon to have shot several protestors in an illegal boarding. The other conflicting eyewitnesses say something completely different, and have had any corroberating evidence to their astory stolen from them.
Some of the aopl;ogists are really clutching at straws, the IDF could be caught running a child brothel on the ship and it would still be someones elses fault.
Orlanth wrote:
So wrong. Where do you get your dogma from?
A certain amount of research into international law, as well as the israeli occupation of Gaza.
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad. Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.
the line between legal and allowed in international law is also a fuzzy one. Israel won the territory, and what it does with it is really up to it under international law.
boarding a ship to inspect it is legal. Only in your own territorial waters.
Except not really. it's always been allowed in practice.
Some of the aopl;ogists are really clutching at straws, the IDF could be caught running a child brothel on the ship and it would still be someones elses fault.
Unfortunately, the polarizing nature of the issue makes the opposite more or less true. I'm not saying what they did was legal, I'm saying we need to get more facts.
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad. Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.
the line between legal and allowed in international law is also a fuzzy one. Israel won the territory, and what it does with it is really up to it under international law.
Umm, didn't control of Gaza pass to the Palastinians in 1994?
Polonius wrote:
Some of the aopl;ogists are really clutching at straws, the IDF could be caught running a child brothel on the ship and it would still be someones elses fault.
Unfortunately, the polarizing nature of the issue makes the opposite more or less true. I'm not saying what they did was legal, I'm saying we need to get more facts.
Sadly most of those 'facts' have been stolen by the Israeli's and are very unlikely to see the light of day if they're going to make them look bad.
And while this goes on, the Rachel Corrie has ignored the third request to divert to Ashdod to have the aid inspected--and a barrage of rockets was fired from Gaza into the Western Negev region.
The Rachel Corrie - sadly to say - is the worst example of a real-life Troll. That's right kids.
This has turned from a peaceful Aid movement to them simply disobeying completely sane and reasonable orders from the IDF to be searched when thousands of rockets are fired, using material sourced from outside, into Israel.
Boarded to be 'searched'. if that was all that was going to happen that would be ok.
The Rachel Corrie is carrying school supplies and cement. Why is it carrying those? Because those items are forbidden from entry into Gaza.
Cement is too good for them Palestinians apparently. Cement allows the people of Gaza to rebuild, and building materials are forbidden because when something is taken down the Israelis dont want to being rebuilt.
The embargo list allows wood for replacing door and windows, but not wood for construction. So you cannot rebuild a house but you can replace a door.
This isnt about stopping terrorism, this is about denying the people of Gaza the basic amenities in order to carry on their lives, in the hope that they give up and leave.
The White House urged the Rachel Corrie to go to Ashdod and hand over its cargo to the Israelis for transportation along with regular aid. This is Obamas way to pretend to make a form of peaceful intervention. But what would happen if the ship did. The Israelis would take one look at the cargo and prevent its package from leaving the dock. It probably wouldnt go to waste, but giving free cement to the Israelis is likely not what the Irish were intending when they donated the supply.
a legal embargo has to have legal purpose and be proportional. If the ship was running guns then my whole opinion on what is goin on would be reversed. I would even have some sympathy for the Israeli commasndoes who shot nine people, but this group is well accreddited and monitored. Everyone knew they were coming, everyone knew they had humantiraian supplies. if guns were found we would have been shown them already. the Israelis showed pcitures of the weapons fiound, some kitchen knifes, batons and a sledgehammer. All of which are standared shipping tools and not in any way unusual in any ship of that size.
As for these 'thousands of missiles' being fired. are you frikking joking, the fact they are fired at all is bad enough, but you cannot m ake peace with everyone, just as you cannot completely stop the violence in Northern Ireland, even now. The only time we see 'thousands of missiles being launched is when one of the trckle the Arabs fire actually hits someone. Are those missiles all fired at terrorists? No. Unless you have it in your mind to assume everyone in Gaza is a terrorist. If you look at the rhetoric used to describe the activists on the ships attacked recently and then looked at the proflies of who actually was on those ships then perhaps Israel does blanket consider Palestinains terrorists to be shot. After all the 'terrorists' on board the boat where nine people died, the the rhetoric used in the Jeruslame post did label everyone on that ship a terrorist included a retired US ambassador. Funny looking terrorist.
If firing missiles of itself was the big issue, as opposed to who fired thanm and at whome then Israel has more terrorists than anyone, after all with all the rhetoriic against Iran and Iraq the concept of 'state terror' is now established.
Its time to end this sorry mess. But they wont when the US will do nothing positive and a who lot of vetoing when asked. And the US will do nothing because it can do nothing. Its bad enough myself and others here being labelled by frantic apologists, an elected official can't afford that type of controversy.
You know, I found myself thinking Orlanth had a point. Then he started on the missilies Hamas lobs to periodically kill people, and showed himself completely devoid of all sympathy for those who get killed by them, and the whole reason the blockade was established in the first place.
Now I just think he's generally ragging on israel for the hell of it, because that's what the press do. Bravo!
Orlanth, I am not going to get drawn into the whole Israel / Palestine debate that is infecting OT because it is pointless and self-defeating except to say that I personally know someone who lives in Israel, in Haifa and I can assure you there are a lot more rocket attacks (and bomb attacks as well) than the press, and the BBC in particular, would have you believe. And speaking as a former soldier who has done tours of Iraq, I can also assure you that having rockets aimed and landing near you is no fun at all.
I want to state clearly (because some posters have been having trouble with this) that I think rocket attacks by palestinian extremists are completely and utterly wrong. Those doing it need to be brought to justice. HOWEVER I also think the actions of israeli settlers, the blockade, and the previous boarding of a ship in international waters are wrong. There's wrong on both sides here. Israel is the side with the most power, which is why I usually hope they'll try and improve the situation, but it seems to me that their policies will beget more violence as is. It's a terribly sad and confused situation, and I don't think picking sides one way or another is appropriate. I'm not pro- or anti- israel or palestine, I'm just saddened by the seemingly endless cycle of violence and I will not defend or accept policies (such as the blockade) which I think are making it worse.
Hopefully that will make my stance clearer to some posters (such as Frazzled) who are getting agitated by what they see as a lot of anti-israeli posts on this forum.
I also think that this discussion is really very valuable, as long as we can all keep our heads. For that reason I appreciate the many measured and carefully thought out posts being made by people on both sides, and would respectfully ask that people who are feeling angry about what they read calm down before posting if possible. I'd hate to see this debate censored.
Ketara wrote:You know, I found myself thinking Orlanth had a point. Then he started on the missilies Hamas lobs to periodically kill people, and showed himself completely devoid of all sympathy for those who get killed by them, and the whole reason the blockade was established in the first place.
Now I just think he's generally ragging on israel for the hell of it, because that's what the press do. Bravo!
Not really fair.
What I am hearing a lot, on this threat and elsewhere because some in Hamas are firing rockets there can be no sympathy for Palestinians. That would like like justifying laying waste to Belfast because of the IRA.
I made the point of pointing out that had the flotilla actually been carrying arms then I would have not only little sympathy for the acticvists, they would be at best dupes but would have some sympathy for the soldeirs who shot them. As it so happens I am getting noting remotely resembling remorse for shooting these people, denying the wounded medical attention etc etc. As the recent campaign on Gaza indicates how it is now policty to wage grossly disproportionate action I have little choice but to wonder if the shooting were in fact intended to send a lesson.
History has proven thast Israel can do as it pleases. one of the flotilla was on the US intelligence ship the Israelis bombed in 1967 at the cost of 37 US servicemens lives. Some people were angry for a while, but the US went right back to supporting Israel and vetoing the UN on request. They know they can get away with this, after all some on Dakka actually welcomed the idea of the ships being torpedoed.
So going back to the Hamas rocket attacks. If rocket attacks are highlighted why such a massive artillery and airstrike retaliation, especially as many if not most of the attacks were aimed at civilian infrastructure rather than any specifically identified terrorists. Its just the same and beggars belief that it is supported. if it were any other nation it wouldnt be. What is the difference than the blast of a Hamas rocket or the blast of a bomb from and IAF jet or army shell, except that there are a whole lot more and they tend to hit targets more often.
Ketara, you too have a point, I have not gone out of my way to sympathise with those Israelis who have lost family members to terrorism, but that is not for any lack of sympathy, but from an emphasis elsewhere. So say an Israeli child gets hit by a rocket. Yes thats trajic, but what happens next? Airstrikes resulting in approx a 100:1 casualty rate. The people who fire the rockets are individual scum. The people who order the mass slaughter in retaliation are in a matter worse as they pass what they do off as 'justice'. You think the airstrikes hit terrorists, they might hit some but they also hit families, schools, streets, markets. There is little evidence to suggest they actually target terrorists to begin with, but just slam the infrastructure and hope to catch some in the blast.
If I focus on the hundred innocents killed rather than the one, is that wrong?
If you want to spare that one life, stop oppressing the hundred, give them something else to do other than hate, starve or die. They have no hope, so no wonder Hamas is popular. They have a great deal of anger and because of massive retaliation problably each know people who were lost due to airstrikes, people underserving of death. are you surpirsed they pick up rockets. I am not.
After Bloody Sunday IRA recruitment mushroomed, furthermore a lot of the press ceased to crtique terror. This from one and one one slip up causing mass civilians deaths, a good record allowing for the lwength of th troubles. Every sunday is Bloody Sunday in Gaza, yet it is expected that the victims and not the armed forces shooting or bombing them carry the blame. Totally disproportionate.
Israel has no reason to loosen up their policies--as clearly evidenced by the fact that even when the world is giving Israel the big "tut-tut" and the limelight is focused on the region, the Palestinians launch a barrage of rockets aimed at an area with no military significance.
The image Hamas feeds the world of being a "peaceful organization" is a farce when they do nothing more than bomb civilian areas--often times resulting in more Palestinian deaths than Israeli.
And yet, somehow they still get support because when Israel cracks down on Hamas activities, they have to curtail the activities of the Palestinians themselves due to the nature of how Hamas fights(no uniformed combatants, no adhering to assaulting military targets, etc).
Nobody on the boards has claimed that Hamas are a peaceful organisation. That doesn't mean Israeli policy is right or humane or going to end well or stop the violence.
Yeah, but...well, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Nobody with any sense believes them. It's pretty well accepted that they are a nasty and violent organisation. Nasty and violent conditions tend to favour nasty and violent organisations.
Do we know for certain that's all that was carried on those vessels?
Nope.
Cement can easily be used to construct roadblocks and reinforce bomb factories against airstrikes, by the by.
Which is another thing that irks me.
Israel shouldn't use airstrikes or artillery? Please. There's a reason they engage the last known location of a launcher that fired a barrage with weapons that don't require soldiers to be on the ground.
Simply put? The Palestinians rig the areas with booby traps.
Kanluwen wrote:Israel has no reason to loosen up their policies--as clearly evidenced by the fact that even when the world is giving Israel the big "tut-tut" and the limelight is focused on the region, the Palestinians launch a barrage of rockets aimed at an area with no military significance.
Again what would you do if your town was bombed. How angry were you after 9/11? If you want to stop the rockets stop the oppression. Palestinains do not have any option except to fight, they are given noth8ng and what little they have is taken away. Bulldozers can turn up at any tyime and take away their homes. Compensation, you got to be kidding, they are lucky to be given five minutes warning. If you were given five minutes warning to get out of your home because you were an unwelcome minority and your home was bulldozed by the government would you be angry?
How angry would you have to be before you started wanting to get even?
This is what people repeatedly fail to understand to fight terrorism you have to have a higher moral bar than the terrorists. They have the power and the responsibility, fail in that responsbility and you breed a new generation of vehement opposition.
Kanluwen wrote:
The image Hamas feeds the world of being a "peaceful organization" is a farce when they do nothing more than bomb civilian areas--often times resulting in more Palestinian deaths than Israeli.
No Hamas are not peaceful, but they are the democratically elected representatives like it or not. Is Netanyahu and his Likud party peaceful? Hell no, but we deal with them.
I will admit that Likud changed its policy to support in principle, autonomy for Palestinians within Israel, wheras Hamas policy has not changed from an uncompromising position. Though again if the siege stops and the disproportionate violence stops this may change. Note I just said disproportionate violence. If Israel tries a strike for strike policy trying its best to only hit those that need eliminating much of the criticism would go away.
The IRA were quite firm on their policy that the Uk should be kicked out of Northen ireland, but they were able to be brought to the table alongside loyalist groups and others. They were convinced to change thier minds, evertyone compromised, noone got exactly what they wanted. Peace is still possible, but Hamas must at some stage be negotiated with. The only alternative would be a slow motion 'final solution' for the Palestinian problem, and some beleive that is what Israeli hardliners want and it is not unindicative by what they are doing. This angers be more than anything else, the people who say 'never again' should not be seen put another people group through such an ordeal.
Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, somehow they still get support because when Israel cracks down on Hamas activities, they have to curtail the activities of the Palestinians themselves due to the nature of how Hamas fights(no uniformed combatants, no adhering to assaulting military targets, etc).
A tough one, but it is manageable. The Troubles are over, but we lost more soldiers than the IRA lost terrorists. there is a bill to pay. The trouble is the attitude in israel is kill one of us we will slaughter many of you. The price is not paid and peace gets further away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Do we know for certain that's all that was carried on those vessels?
Nope.
Agreed we dont know the minutiae but others do. The activists wanted the cargos inspected, thats why they brought press along and Noble Peace Prize winner and a US ambassador and an author etc etc. Do you think an ambassador would put his name to a peacful aid effort if he didnt check it himself or with others.
Kanluwen wrote:
Cement can easily be used to construct roadblocks and reinforce bomb factories against airstrikes, by the by.
It could also rebuild the schools the pencils were to be sent to.
Kanluwen wrote:
Which is another thing that irks me.
Israel shouldn't use airstrikes or artillery? Please. There's a reason they engage the last known location of a launcher that fired a barrage with weapons that don't require soldiers to be on the ground.
Simply put? The Palestinians rig the areas with booby traps.
Thats why you need decent troops on the ground. Dont beleive they cannot do it, they do do it every day in fact. Airstrikes do not solve policing problems, only infatry does.
Orlanth, the problem is that neither the PLO or Hamas has ever negotiated in good faith. Nearly every loosening of restrictions was followed by more violence.
Israel doesn't fully have the western aversion to disproportionate violence, good or bad.
I agree that any solution requires Israel to loosen their grip, they've simply learned over and over that doing so means they lose lives. And not the lives of soldiers or police, but civilians. I don't feel comfortable telling a state that they need to suck up dozens or hundreds of deaths.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
And RIP the roughly one hundred Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed due to the indiscriminate destruction caused by the IDF in response to every rocket attack. You're rooting for the wrong team in that instance, likely due to some sense of ignorance concerning the reality of the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:And while this goes on, the Rachel Corrie has ignored the third request to divert to Ashdod to have the aid inspected--and a barrage of rockets was fired from Gaza into the Western Negev region.
Those poor, poor peaceful Palestinians.
Yeah, it's as if they think they're fighting for some sort of cause. I mean, what have the Israelis ever done to them?
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
And RIP the roughly one hundred Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed due to the indiscriminate destruction caused by the IDF in response to every rocket attack. You're rooting for the wrong team in that instance, likely due to some sense of ignorance concerning the reality of the situation.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
And RIP the roughly one hundred Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed due to the indiscriminate destruction caused by the IDF in response to every rocket attack. You're rooting for the wrong team in that instance, likely due to some sense of ignorance concerning the reality of the situation.
It is time we are an seen to say RIP to both.
Not really, saying RIP to anything or anyone (on an internet discussion) is an unhelpful, contentless, and emotional shorthand method to profess support for one side of an issue while subtly highlighting the failures of another. It's about time people dropped the gak and just started looking at the straight facts of the situation without their giant foam #1 fingers and foamboard signs with flags on them.
It's not like you knew any of the people killed. Wheres your RIP coming from? Faux support and armchair involvement is what's keeping these boat threads from reaching a more moderate and even handed tone.
Kanluwen wrote:
Which is another thing that irks me.
Israel shouldn't use airstrikes or artillery? Please. There's a reason they engage the last known location of a launcher that fired a barrage with weapons that don't require soldiers to be on the ground.
Simply put? The Palestinians rig the areas with booby traps.
That's why you need decent troops on the ground. Don't believe they cannot do it, they do do it every day in fact. Airstrikes do not solve policing problems, only infatry does.
They don't want to put troops on the ground to hunt down launch sites for Hamas rockets for a very simple reason.
The same reason why Coalition forces in Afghanistan/Iraq use armed drones to engage targets in territory not friendly to their cause and EMS crews in gang territory here in the US wear Kevlar vests, in fact.
It's easy to get trapped in a situation that results in a crapload of deaths for what should have been a very cut and dry operation.
You put troops on the ground at a boobytrapped site, someone sets something off--you're a static target and you've lost all element of surprise. The IDF is not stupid in that regard, they learned the lesson that Mogadishu taught modern armed forces.
They don't want to put troops on the ground to hunt down launch sites for Hamas rockets for a very simple reason.
They do? They do do that. They do it all the time. They constantly raid gaza to hit sites where rockets were fired.
The same reason why Coalition forces in Afghanistan/Iraq use armed drones to engage targets in territory not friendly to their cause and EMS crews in gang territory here in the US wear Kevlar vests, in fact.
No, they use drones because it gives them an omnipresent strike and observational capability that mechanized infantry would be totally incapable of matching.
It's easy to get trapped in a situation that results in a crapload of deaths for what should have been a very cut and dry operation.
T Pain said they couldn't get him because he was on a boat. They should have asked T Pain to go with them.
You put troops on the ground at a boobytrapped site, someone sets something off--you're a static target and you've lost all element of surprise. The IDF is not stupid in that regard, they learned the lesson that Mogadishu taught modern armed forces.
No. Thats actually totally incorrect and has very little to do with how the IDF actually responds to rocket attacks. They use infantry all the time to hit sites and attempt to kill/capture militants.
Kanluwen wrote:Uh no. The only time infantry go in is with air and armor support.
Yes. Thats what infantry do. It's called a combined arms strategy. They don't turn into helicopters. The IDF doesn't employ purely transformers, and the israeli soldiers don't walk to the launch sites.
Kanluwen wrote:The only gunshots look like they came from the "peaceful protesters" grabbing the pistols from the soldiers, who were firing Pepperball guns.
So you're saying a 19 year old American kid shot himself in the head 4 times?
Kanluwen wrote:The only gunshots look like they came from the "peaceful protesters" grabbing the pistols from the soldiers, who were firing Pepperball guns.
So you're saying a 19 year old American kid shot himself in the head 4 times?
I also find it unlikely that they managed to grab nine of the commandoes guns or that they just traded the gun to the next guy every time someone was shot. It's likely one person brandished or fired a weapon at the soldiers and then the soldiers returned fire into the crowd.
It's not like you knew any of the people killed. Wheres your RIP coming from? Faux support and armchair involvement is what's keeping these boat threads from reaching a more moderate and even handed tone.
Why are you pointing that one at me? You think that because I decry the violence meted out on the activists you think I enjoy to see others suffer, or an any less sincere that others.
Human compassion drives most activists and critics opinions on the middle east rather than factional ties.
It is as erroneous to consider me a Islamophile as you call me anti-Semitic. In fact from my other threads you might find I am highly critical of Islam. But I am even more strongly critical of senseless killing and suffering.
It's not like you knew any of the people killed. Wheres your RIP coming from? Faux support and armchair involvement is what's keeping these boat threads from reaching a more moderate and even handed tone.
Why are you pointing that one at me? You think that because I decry the violence meted out on the activists you think I enjoy to see others suffer, or an any less sincere that others.
Human compassion drives most activists and critics opinions on the middle east rather than factional ties.
It is as erroneous to consider me a Islamophile as you call me anti-Semitic. In fact from my other threads you might find I am highly critical of Islam. But I am even more strongly critical of senseless killing and suffering.
I think you'll find that you took my post a bit far, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that insofar as you are decrying the loss of life by giving short little 'RIP' eulogies you're serving to pull the discussion down into something that is more base and emotional then it needs to be. You're certainly not the only person that did it and I'm not singling you out. I should have been less specific in how I quoted you.
Kanluwen wrote:The only gunshots look like they came from the "peaceful protesters" grabbing the pistols from the soldiers, who were firing Pepperball guns.
So you're saying a 19 year old American kid shot himself in the head 4 times?
I also find it unlikely that they managed to grab nine of the commandoes guns or that they just traded the gun to the next guy every time someone was shot. It's likely one person brandished or fired a weapon at the soldiers and then the soldiers returned fire into the crowd.
There is an alternate explanation, they never seized guns at all. Its a whitewashed story to cover up a fethed up operation and blame it on 'murderous mercenaries' which is what the most trigger happy commando called the activists.
ShumaGorath wrote:
It's not like you knew any of the people killed. Wheres your RIP coming from? Faux support and armchair involvement is what's keeping these boat threads from reaching a more moderate and even handed tone.
Why are you pointing that one at me? You think that because I decry the violence meted out on the activists you think I enjoy to see others suffer, or an any less sincere that others.
Human compassion drives most activists and critics opinions on the middle east rather than factional ties.
It is as erroneous to consider me an Islamophile as to call me anti-Semitic. In fact from my other threads you might find I am highly critical of Islam. But I am even more strongly critical of senseless killing and suffering.
There is an alternate explanation, they never seized guns at all. Its a whitewashed story to cover up a fethed up operation and blame it on 'murderous mercenaries' which is what the most trigger happy commando called the activists.
Well yeah, there are plenty of explanations. I find mine to be the most plausible though. It's not like firing into a crowd indiscriminately to bring down one person with a gun is somehow an 'ok' thing to do.
Why are you pointing that one at me? You think that because I decry the violence meted out on the activists you think I enjoy to see others suffer, or an any less sincere that others. Human compassion drives most activists and critics opinions on the middle east rather than factional ties. It is as erroneous to consider me an Islamophile as to call me anti-Semitic. In fact from my other threads you might find I am highly critical of Islam. But I am even more strongly critical of senseless killing and suffering.
Was this another weird double post? Dakkas been weird lately.
Two things have bought tears too my eyes.
One was a little boy hiding behind some rubble, with his dad. While someone was firing a machine gun at them.
The other was a doll, lying in the rubble of the twin towers.
How many children have too die
Because adults are greedy or stupid.
loki old fart wrote:Two things have bought tears too my eyes. One was a little boy hiding behind some rubble, with his dad. While someone was firing a machine gun at them. The other was a doll, lying in the rubble of the twin towers.
How many children have too die Because adults are greedy or stupid.
It's not like you knew any of the people killed. Wheres your RIP coming from? Faux support and armchair involvement is what's keeping these boat threads from reaching a more moderate and even handed tone.
Why are you pointing that one at me? You think that because I decry the violence meted out on the activists you think I enjoy to see others suffer, or an any less sincere that others.
Human compassion drives most activists and critics opinions on the middle east rather than factional ties.
It is as erroneous to consider me a Islamophile as you call me anti-Semitic. In fact from my other threads you might find I am highly critical of Islam. But I am even more strongly critical of senseless killing and suffering.
I think you'll find that you took my post a bit far, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that insofar as you are decrying the loss of life by giving short little 'RIP' eulogies you're serving to pull the discussion down into something that is more base and emotional then it needs to be. You're certainly not the only person that did it and I'm not singling you out. I should have been less specific in how I quoted you.
Thanks I understand
ShumaGorath wrote:
Was this another weird double post? Dakkas been weird lately.
Orlanth wrote: If you want to stop the rockets stop the oppression. Palestinains do not have any option except to fight, they are given nothing and what little they have is taken away. Bulldozers can turn up at anytime and take away their homes. Compensation, you got to be kidding, they are lucky to be given five minutes warning.
Categorically untrue, (emboldened bit). Israel still faces (half proverbial) rockets and support for the people doing this from other countries. Israel still has a whole load of enemies who really, really don't want it to exist. The minor Middle Eastern States, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia all hate its guts. Russia and Iran's unholy little alleigance is possibly one of the biggest threats to world security, merely because if anything happened between Iran and Israel that region, and then most of the world would kick off.
Orlanth wrote:If you were given five minutes warning to get out of your home because you were an unwelcome minority and your home was bulldozed by the government would you be angry? How angry would you have to be before you started wanting to get even?
"Getting angry" against a major world power is a bad idea. "Getting even" with it by firing rockets into densely packed civilian targets is even worse. The Israelis have got carried away on how powerful they are, yes, but still had to fight for their existence in the beginning - and sorrily for the Palestinians they won. The land they took was taken because they repulsed the Arab incursions, its borders are disputed but nonetheless controlled by Israel in a situation it had the skill and resolve to control decades ago.
Orlanth wrote:This is what people repeatedly fail to understand to fight terrorism you have to have a higher moral bar than the terrorists. They have the power and the responsibility, fail in that responsbility and you breed a new generation of vehement opposition.
This is the vicious cycle. Having a higher moral bar than the terrorists may work over a greater vista - the Coalition's "War on Terror" - for example. When the terrorists control the government of an angry populace a few hundred yards from your country, controlling the situation through gentle, hearts and minds means gets exponentially tougher. Even more when the conflict in question seems to be even more deep-rooted than merely a dispute over land or human migration.
Orlanth wrote:Though again if the siege stops and the disproportionate violence stops this may change. Note I just said disproportionate violence. If Israel tries a strike for strike policy trying its best to only hit those that need eliminating much of the criticism would go away.
Much of the criticism may go away, but the situation will only get worse for Israel. Hamas doesn't stop attacking Israel simply because the airstrikes which cause horrific collateral damage stop. Do Hamas honestly care? I don't think so. I think it's more about their greater aims. Their meta-argument, if you will, against Israel.
Orlanth wrote:This angers be more than anything else, the people who say 'never again' should not be seen put another people group through such an ordeal.
This is true. The situation is not identical, but it does sometimes seem that Israel's taking out a certain frustration upon a minority, because they can. It's pretty crude to simply put it as "They're really quite pissed off because of the Holocaust" but it holds a modicum of truth. This argument between them and the Arab population, condensed into such a ghetto-ised atmosphere as Gaza can't be compared to the Holocaust. It's a longer running, more hate-fueled thing. It's more about religion than about ethnicity, which people can overcome for religion. But that's another matter.
Orlanth wrote:A tough one, but it is manageable. The Troubles are over, but we lost more soldiers than the IRA lost terrorists. there is a bill to pay. The trouble is the attitude in israel is kill one of us we will slaughter many of you. The price is not paid and peace gets further away.
I've said it before in this, I'll say it again. We can't directly compare The Troubles to this. The matters arising are different, the numbers are different, the situations are different. Somehow in this case merely a 'hearts and minds'/'diplomacy' resolution will sort it all. We don't want another intifada, anyway.
Categorically untrue, (emboldened bit). Israel still faces (half proverbial) rockets and support for the people doing this from other countries. Israel still has a whole load of enemies who really, really don't want it to exist. The minor Middle Eastern States, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia all hate its guts. Russia and Iran's unholy little alleigance is possibly one of the biggest threats to world security, merely because if anything happened between Iran and Israel that region, and then most of the world would kick off.
Iran gets more from china at this point IIRC, and a regional war between Isreal and them wouldn't start WW3. It's highly unlikely any major power would back Iran.
This is the vicious cycle. Having a higher moral bar than the terrorists may work over a greater vista - the Coalition's "War on Terror" - for example. When the terrorists control the government of an angry populace a few hundred yards from your country, controlling the situation through gentle, hearts and minds means gets exponentially tougher. Even more when the conflict in question seems to be even more deep-rooted than merely a dispute over land or human migration.
It also doesn't help when you don't actually have the moral high ground. Killing one hundred Gazans for every Israeli killed cedes the highground to the people firing the rockets.
Seriously.
Much of the criticism may go away, but the situation will only get worse for Israel. Hamas doesn't stop attacking Israel simply because the airstrikes which cause horrific collateral damage stop. Do Hamas honestly care? I don't think so. I think it's more about their greater aims. Their meta-argument, if you will, against Israel.
Much of Hamas' civilian support would dry up if israel stopped deserving to have rocket shot at it. Hamas functions via civilian grass roots support which is aided significantly by confusing and seemingly self destructive Israeli policies in the region.
I've said it before in this, I'll say it again. We can't directly compare The Troubles to this. The matters arising are different, the numbers are different, the situations are different. Somehow in this case merely a 'hearts and minds'/'diplomacy' resolution will sort it all. We don't want another intifada, anyway.
The Situation in the UK is so mind numbingly different than this that any serious comparison deserves to have it's owner slapped in the face.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.
How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.
How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?
More innocent Gazans died when israel invaded it last then have ever died from hamas' rockets. But lets not let reality get in the way of your ludicrous and insane rants.
dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.
Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?
Inspection means a lot of things including removing contraband, contraband insides such items as livestock, tinned food, fresh fruit, meat and vegetables, tools etc. Basic anything likely to give the people of Gaza a measure of sustainability. it is also delayed to a trickle so that the people are constantly in need. They shouldnt pay those games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.
Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.
blockades are by definition illegal. Embargos are lergal.
As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.
The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.
Elections have consequences. Thats what happens when you elect a terrorist group to represent you and that terrorist group laucnhes thousands of rockets into another nation. If Israel acted like Syria when the Palestianians rose up they would just drop artillery on all the major Gazan settlements until everyone and everything was dead. Timehonored tradition. But because its Israel they are bad.
Sink the ship in deep water. Solves the problem.
dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.
Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?
Inspection means a lot of things including removing contraband, contraband insides such items as livestock, tinned food, fresh fruit, meat and vegetables, tools etc. Basic anything likely to give the people of Gaza a measure of sustainability. it is also delayed to a trickle so that the people are constantly in need. They shouldnt pay those games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.
Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.
blockades are by definition illegal. Embargos are lergal.
As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.
The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.
Elections have consequences. Thats what happens when you elect a terrorist group to represent you and that terrorist group laucnhes thousands of rockets into another nation. If Israel acted like Syria when the Palestianians rose up they would just drop artillery on all the major Gazan settlements until everyone and everything was dead. Timehonored tradition. But because its Israel they are bad.
Sink the ship in deep water. Solves the problem.
I think you have a serious problem with your inability to understand the concept of mutually shared culpability and blame. More than one thing can be bad you know. It doesn't break your see saw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
smiling Assassin wrote:I should have known when I pressed F5 twice that seeing Frazz then Shuma's names consecutively was not a good thing.
sA
My short posts are usually flabberghasted responses to insanity.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.
How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?
More innocent Gazans died when israel invaded it last then have ever died from hamas' rockets. But lets not let reality get in the way of your ludicrous and insane rants.
If you ever had facts to actually support any of the crap you type I'd have a heart attack.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.
How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?
More innocent Gazans died when israel invaded it last then have ever died from hamas' rockets. But lets not let reality get in the way of your ludicrous and insane rants.
If you ever had facts to actually support any of the crap you type I'd have a heart attack.
I know you hate wikipedia, but at this point I really don't care. You're just wrong about almost everything you post and having to hold your hand like this all the time isn't my job. If you want me to teach you about current events and politics I'm going to have to start charging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
smiling Assassin wrote:Cool it before someone breaks a nail?
2. If even true,don't pick a fight with a superior country. There would be no blockade, no incursions back into Gaza, if Hamas didn't keep firing the missiles.
Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering. They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.
And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.
I've said it before in this, I'll say it again. We can't directly compare The Troubles to this. The matters arising are different, the numbers are different, the situations are different. Somehow in this case merely a 'hearts and minds'/'diplomacy' resolution will sort it all. We don't want another intifada, anyway.
The Situation in the UK is so mind numbingly different than this that any serious comparison deserves to have it's owner slapped in the face.
Why is it different. You should see what the IRA other Nationalist and loyalist terror groups got up to. The area is roughly similar sized, the population roughly comperable and make no mistake the populace hate each other. You are right that Northern ireland could not be like Gaza, but Gaza could be like Northern Ireland. All it takes is more restraint. Conversely the major difference between Gaza and Northern Ireland in how they look is theat the Brtish army never shelled Belfast.
Comparisons are valid because the various loyalist and republican groups hate each other in a way that equals what you find in the middle east. Sectarian killings wer commonplace and many terror groups would go out of their way to capture and turture to death members of their opposite factions and also punish people who associated with them. Actually Hamas is restrained compared to the IRA by all accounts. I am yet to hear of Hamas slowly dismembering victims, while still alive, with a blowtorch.
The peace was held, it was nasty and the Army took a lot of casualties in the process, more than was recorded, but it happened and eventually it worked. There is definately a model to be found there that could work for Gaza.
2. If even true,don't pick a fight with a superior country. There would be no blockade, no incursions back into Gaza, if Hamas didn't keep firing the missiles.
Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering. They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.
And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.
And you're willfully ignoring third world conditions enforced and designed by israel that existed before Hamas was even elected. You are totally incapable of understand that both parties are in the wrong and you're waving your little israel flag so fast you might start flying at any second. Israel kills so many more gazans than hamas kills israelis that it's not even worth talking about and all you care about is noting that israel is right because it's bigger.
2. If even true,don't pick a fight with a superior country. There would be no blockade, no incursions back into Gaza, if Hamas didn't keep firing the missiles.
Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering. They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.
And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.
Frqazzie dont troll posts you mod. Accusing critics of Israel of actually welcoming rocket attacks is fething insulting. Its low, even for you.
smiling Assassin wrote:
Categorically untrue, (emboldened bit). Israel still faces (half proverbial) rockets and support for the people doing this from other countries. Israel still has a whole load of enemies who really, really don't want it to exist. The minor Middle Eastern States,
What does that mean? What minor Middles Eastern states? If you can't be bothered to name them, then either they must not be important, or you must not know what you're talking about.
smiling Assassin wrote:
Iran, Pakistan, and Russia all hate its guts.
Yes, but Russia and Pakistan hate Israel because Israel causes problems with militancy within their borders.
smiling Assassin wrote:
Russia and Iran's unholy little alleigance is possibly one of the biggest threats to world security, merely because if anything happened between Iran and Israel that region, and then most of the world would kick off.
No. Flatly false. Iran and Russia are not aligned, economic agreements are not tacit to allegiance. Russia has no interest in major military conflict.
smiling Assassin wrote:
"Getting angry" against a major world power is a bad idea.
Israel is not a major world power. They have almost no ability to project force.
smiling Assassin wrote:
"Getting even" with it by firing rockets into densely packed civilian targets is even worse. The Israelis have got carried away on how powerful they are, yes, but still had to fight for their existence in the beginning - and sorrily for the Palestinians they won. The land they took was taken because they repulsed the Arab incursions, its borders are disputed but nonetheless controlled by Israel in a situation it had the skill and resolve to control decades ago.
The Arab incursions have nothing to do with the residents of Palestine, unless you see race as a unifying force?
smiling Assassin wrote:
Much of the criticism may go away, but the situation will only get worse for Israel. Hamas doesn't stop attacking Israel simply because the airstrikes which cause horrific collateral damage stop. Do Hamas honestly care? I don't think so. I think it's more about their greater aims. Their meta-argument, if you will, against Israel.
This is true, but the question then becomes: "How do we settle this meta-argument?" Are we going to glass the Arab world? Not likely, so what will Israel do to ensure its security going forward? Fight until it can't fight anymore? If that's the case, why are we nations who depend on oil exports from the Middle East supporting the endeavor?
(EDIT: ^ Not to Dogma, sorry mate, bad timing. To how the rest of the argument degenerated.) V to Dogma.
o Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. Most definately not friends of Israel.
o Israel causes militancy inside Russia? I have yet to see that. True of militancy in Iran, but then again we probably can extrapolate that the USA also does. I realise that I just went round in a circle, but the militancy surely is mutual between Israel and Iran? I can't see the relations getting this bad without both sides being quite intimately involved somewhere within eachother's borders.
o Economic agreements with a power that is generally hated the world over is quite a big deal. Sharing of military technology is also a big deal. And when you get Russian weapons filtered through the middle east, you can tell Iran is involved.
o How are nuclear weapons not a statement of force projection? The middle east is a major region, Israel is one of the biggest players. Of course they are a world power. The USA makes sure they are a world power.
o No, I didn't mean it too much down that vein. Israel increased its landmass something like 300% during the 1948- wars, during vicious counter attacks with the Arab states. During that manouevre they enveloped the Palestinians' land who were also causing them trouble. Problem theoretically sorted for them. It's their dealing with it that fethed it up.
o No idea. Don't pretend to have an idea. I do know however that Northern Ireland is an insultingly bad similarity to draw.
smiling Assassin wrote:
"Getting angry" against a major world power is a bad idea.
Israel is not a major world power. They have almost no ability to project force.
With all the supposed influence they have on the US+UK claimed by some of the folks around here, you'd think Israel were sitting back tweaking their mustache while cackling maniacally around a cigar and wearing a monocle.
Frazzled wrote:
Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering.
Most of the complaints in this thread pertain to the ridiculous restrictions on food that Israel mandates. You're factually wrong, as usual.
Frazzled wrote:
They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.
Iran isn't the primary source of Hamas weaponry, again, you're wrong.
Frazzled wrote:
And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.
No, the food isn't coming in, that's the point of much of the criticism here.
Additionally, people in this very thread have demeaned the rocket attacks made by Hamas.
Either you do not read, or you cannot read. This behavior is absolutely shameful.
Kanluwen wrote:
With all the supposed influence they have on the US+UK claimed by some of the folks around here, you'd think Israel were sitting back tweaking their mustache while cackling maniacally around a cigar and wearing a monocle.
They have a ton of influence. Note that more than half of US foreign aid is dedicated to protecting Israel; supposedly a first world nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
smiling Assassin wrote:
o Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. Most definately not friends of Israel.
Jordan has a nonaggression pact with Israel, as well as a water sharing agreement. If anything the Jordanians hate Palestinians, not Israelis.
smiling Assassin wrote:
o Israel causes militancy inside Russia? I have yet to see that. True of militancy in Iran, but then again we probably can extrapolate that the USA also does. I realise that I just went round in a circle, but the militancy surely is mutual between Israel and Iran? I can't see the relations getting this bad without both sides being quite intimately involved somewhere within eachother's borders.
Iran is, of course, mutually engaged in hostilities with Israel.
There have been Chechen rebels captured that have stated that Russia's Western allegiance is directly related to their (Chechen) antagonism.
smiling Assassin wrote:
o Economic agreements with a power that is generally hated the world over is quite a big deal. Sharing of military technology is also a big deal. And when you get Russian weapons filtered through the middle east, you can tell Iran is involved.
I wouldn't say its a big deal in the sense that we can begin talking about allegiance, Russia doesn't rush to the defense of Iran on a military level. The US has a free-trade agreement with Mexico, is the US aligned with Mexico? Similarly, the US sells weapons to Venezuela, are we aligned with Venezuela?
smiling Assassin wrote:
o How are nuclear weapons not a statement of force projection? The middle east is a major region, Israel is one of the biggest players. Of course they are a world power. The USA makes sure they are a world power.
Delivery systems are a statement of force projection more so than payloads. Israel is a regonal power, that has the ear of a world power. Israel could not, for example, dictate Indian economic behavior in the way that the US can. The fact that the USA must 'make sure' that Israel is a world power indicated to me that they aren't.
smiling Assassin wrote:
"Getting angry" against a major world power is a bad idea.
Israel is not a major world power. They have almost no ability to project force.
With all the supposed influence they have on the US+UK claimed by some of the folks around here, you'd think Israel were sitting back tweaking their mustache while cackling maniacally around a cigar and wearing a monocle.
Israel doesnt have that much influence in the UK, but does have enormous influence in the US, particular in Washington and in the media. europe is fairly neutral, Germany remains traditionally silent on all issues regarding Israel. The Uk remains neutral and abstains from some votes as that was a condition of the 1948 treaty, and this manitained neutrality has helped long run as it has allowed thre buiuilding of alliances with Jordan without pissing off Israel in the process. Most western media including the BBC is very fair on the middle east, that doent stop acusations of Arabist commentary however this actually because any media reporting not parroting the Israeli governments opinion <cough> Fox News <cough> is considered Arabist.
IF YOU ARE UPSET BY CRITIQUE OF ISRAEL READ THIS:
Anyway one point I think a lot of Israeli apologists here have missed, despite attempts to explained, critics of Israel are not necessarily hardened Arabists. I think I have found a new way of explaining this. Some people here here out of factional loyalties, this includes most of those who supported heavy responces to the aid flotilla. I do not think there is anyone here who is a genuine supporter of Hamas on Dakka, i am yet to meet one anyway, most critics are simply compasionate humanists who dislike what they are seeing. I think we have assumed this would be understood but I think it now bears further explanation.
Imagine the Palestinians won the civil war in 1948 but there was an oppressed Jewish enclave or two in the State of Palestine, from there occassionally Likud terorists would send rockets into Palestine and the eilte Palestinian army would retaliate brutally. Imagine there was no influential Jewish media or political lobby and few abroad cared for them. Instead the Palestinian Hamas government is buying the American veto in the UN with oil money and has much of the US media's backing and wide popular support. Thus they manage to put a spin on their brutal oppression of the Jews in the West Bank and Gaza and usually it works. Recently an aid flotilla set sail to bring aid to stricken Jews and the Hamas government attacked them under the excuse that they were a cover for or aid to Likud terrorism.
Who would you support? Some who are on the thread for partisan reasons might support one faction irregardless. Those who are critics on compassionate and humanitarian groups would speak out to support the oppressed minority irregardless. I tell you right now that if the boot was on the other foot I would be here posting about how hunded Jews are killed in disproprtionate attacks to one Palestian killed by terroist rockets; and how the people need a chance to get away from the cycle of violence. I suspect most if not all the critics of Israeli policy on these threads would too. Its not about the factions, its about the children, the families, the oppressed, whole communities with futures ruined and dreams lost. They need not be our own kind for us to care for their plight, we need not share their religion, or support the actions they resort to in pained and angry desperation. We care and speak out because it is right to care and speak out.
If the oppressed were Gazan Jews we would speak out for them. This is not anti-semitism, this is not pro-terror, Ismaic fundamentalism or any other horrid label. It's compassion for the broken that fuels our dismay and objection.
Imagine the Palestinians won the civil war in 1948 but there was an oppressed Jewish enclave or two in the State of Palestine, from there occassionally Likud terorists would send rockets into Palestine and the eilte Palestinian army would retaliate brutally.
The assumption that people would back Israel only because they lack objectivism, and thus must need a lesson in it, is unfounded and insulting to the intended "student."
The fact is, the Palestinians are victims. However, they're not victims of just the Israelis. They're a population that has been shoved around, beaten and killed by all the nations in that region. They've been used as a proxy weapon by all the Arab/Muslim states in the region.
To focus on the Israeli response, and not mention the influence of other players in driving the Palestinians, is unfair.
If it were just the Israelis and Palestinians in this thing, I think a solution would be much, MUCH more likely.
So, if you really have "compassion for the broken" you'll be just as angry at the Arab/Muslim forces using a poor, downtrodden people as political capital in their battle against Israel, as you are at Israel's lack of moderation and kindness in dealing with them.
Also: It's a mistake to get into the discussion of who shot first on the boat, who grabbed what, etc. etc. This isn't a murder trial. It's foreign policy. You have to focus on the policy choices of all involved players, and not dwell on split second decisions made by people in tough situations.
The ONLY decision that Israel has made in all this that can really be questioned, is the decision to blockade the ports. According to dogma, this is legal, so I'm going with that. Once it's decided to blockade, all that's left is enforcing it. Israel did this. They sent troops that were equipped for non-lethal action, and those troops were attacked, leading to gunfire and death.
So, should they have created a blockade in the first place? Many people feel this is unjust, and that's a debate to be had, but to dwell on this specific event, to act as if it shows that Israel wants to shoot people, or some other emotionalist garbage, is not helpful.
The question is if this blockade is just/fair/legal.
Frazzled wrote:
Elections have consequences. Thats what happens when you elect a terrorist group to represent you and that terrorist group laucnhes thousands of rockets into another nation. If Israel acted like Syria when the Palestianians rose up they would just drop artillery on all the major Gazan settlements until everyone and everything was dead. Timehonored tradition. But because its Israel they are bad.
No, both are bad. But please, continue to argue with strawmen, it only further elucidates your total ignorance with respect to the conversation.
Also, if the Palestinians are responsible for their electoral choices, are US citizens responsible for theirs? Is it now our fault that economic catastrophes ensue due to the election of certain leaders? Or that we suffer terrorist attacks due to interference in the Middle East? Seriously, you just made the explicit case against Israel, and you didn't even realize it.
2. If even true,don't pick a fight with a superior country. There would be no blockade, no incursions back into Gaza, if Hamas didn't keep firing the missiles.
Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering. They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.
And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.
Frqazzie dont troll posts you mod. Accusing critics of Israel of actually welcoming rocket attacks is fething insulting. Its low, even for you.
Its accurate. You don't like it because its accurate. Your willful ignorance and attacks against only one side of the situation are prima facae evidence of your bias.
Frazzled wrote:Nope as accurate as the other crap being spewed on this and the Israeli thread. Ignoring one side to attack another is bias.
Even if it is bias, it isn't racism, which is what you were claiming.
Additionally, the claims against Israel are accurate. The fact that there may be bias in the focus of those claims does not necessarily diminish their accuracy.
Your claims, on the other hand, have either been completely devoid of factual content (at best obliquely referencing facts), or blatantly incorrect.
Frazzled wrote:
Ah I see lots of reports on me. Can't handle the truth. I love it, silence the critics if you can't argue with them.
Didn't you close two threads based on argument pertaining to this very topic? Moreover, there have been 4 threads, including this one, full of argument against your position.
I really don't see how you can presume that you're being silenced, when you're continuing to speak.
Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.
exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.
How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?
More innocent Gazans died when israel invaded it last then have ever died from hamas' rockets. But lets not let reality get in the way of your ludicrous and insane rants.
If you ever had facts to actually support any of the crap you type I'd have a heart attack.
Its estimated that ~500 Palestinian civilians died in the last Gaza war, as compared to 22 Israeli deaths as the result of rocket attacks.
Frazz: Take it from somebody who is pretty strongly pro-Israel... A LOT more Palestinians are dying than Israelis. It's really not even a question.
And it shouldn't be. The Israelis have one of the most modern, practiced militaries in the world. The Palestinians have... Rocks. Home made rockets.
The staunchly pro-Israeli argument that one would make here is that it's not Israel's responsibility to make sure to keep the "kill ratio" down, it's their responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible.
And, to their credit, the Israelis have been good about avoiding civilian casualties. The conduct of their military isn't the central area of concern in most cases.
Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?
Hutus massacred Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands. That took place in about 3 months after thier president was killed. And the western world didnt seem to really care.
5 years later in Sierra Leone UN 'peace keepers' would only watch as RUF forces would mutilate civilians- chopping off arms, feet, lips, or ears, and that was only when they didnt burn the whole village down.
Some places in the world- when you shoot at your neighbors- they don't just blow up your stuff and your neighbors. They wipe out everything in sight, mutilate whats left, and give the finger to the rest of the world.
I could go into what happens in South America too, like with the FARC and all that, but people here seem to cling to thier beliefs past the point of logic.
Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?
George bush doesn't like black people.
Hutus massacred Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands. That took place in about 3 months after thier president was killed. And the western world didnt seem to really care.
Hence the injection of a realist argument in this thread. America has few strategic interests in Africa. It quite simply doesn't have much of anything we want, and the same can be said for most world powers in regards to the region. A significant amount of aid is given to the region, but in this century the focus seems to be on encouragement and self governance for them. That can be said to changing given the increasing hold militant islam is gaining in northern africa, but only time will tell if we actually care enough to act.
I could go into what happens in South America too, like with the FARC and all that, but people here seem to cling to thier beliefs past the point of logic.
Well of course. The reason this thread isn't all about south Africa is because we just cling to our beliefs. I know I do. All those wacky black people in the dark continent with their menthols! How does it work?
Or we just don't talk about it because this thread isn't about that. You want to start a thread about it start one. I'm sure Dogma or Sebster will say something informed but distant or fateweaver and green git will tell you it's not our concern. Regardless though, this thread isn't about that and I'm confused as to why you think thats relevant at all.
ShumaGorath wrote:George bush doesn't like black people.
Aside from the general ignorance of such a statement, Clinton was in office during the Rwanda genocide.
And the examples listed were to provide some perspective, which you dont seem to grasp- as you'd rather be contrary just to have something to say(which you seem quite adept at )
ShumaGorath wrote:George bush doesn't like black people.
Aside from the general ignorance of such a statement, Clinton was in office during the Rwanda genocide.
And the examples listed were to provide some perspective, which you dont seem to grasp- as you'd rather be contrary just to have something to say(which you seem quite adept at )
Mmm hmm. Yep. Perspective. Oh, did you say something? I was watching the video.
I'm somewhat intrigued though. How you think i lack perspective? Ignoring the fact that your post was essentially an unequivocated rant decrying the lack of perspective on an issue as presented when that issue you seek to see others have good perspective on is not being discussed because it is not the topic of discussion at hand; I do find it interesting that given my statements within this thread (hopefully within this thread, otherwise this conversations going nowhere) you find that I lack perspective.
Praytell magic genie bottle, what does the mirror say about how I lack perspective?
Mistress of minis wrote:Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?
Pretty much. Israel is considered by many to be a strategic and moral ally of the US, so their issues get a lot of attention. Contrast this with Rwanda and Sierra Leone being widely considered lacking in such merits, though that started to change with the Bush Administration's Africa policy and the creation of AFRICOM. The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Praytell magic genie bottle, what does the mirror say about how I lack perspective?
You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Mistress of minis wrote:Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?
Pretty much. Israel is considered by many to be a strategic and moral ally of the US, so their issues get a lot of attention. Contrast this with Rwanda and Sierra Leone being widely considered lacking in such merits, though that started to change with the Bush Administration's Africa policy and the creation of AFRICOM. The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.
Yep, it is changing as Africa slowly gets some fringe levels of modernization. Also, its strategic/economic importance is growing as it has the largest deposits of many rare metals that are essential in manufacturing many of the cutting edge technologies and electronics.
Its also a central feature of Chinese foreign policy; making it natural for the US to take interest regardless of anything else. Then there's the fact that there is a major shipping lane between two regions noted for extremist Islamism.
Africa is gonna be a happening place pretty soon. Darfur may even get some attention as the violence in the Sudan has started to spill into Egypt. With Mubarak on his last legs, and the Muslim Brotherhood thirsting for power that could be a very big problem. No one wants to see an extremist state control the Suez Canal.
You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.
You didn't actually answer my question, you just used an alternative definition of the word perspective from what you had previously established was your chosen definition. You stated that I lacked perspective, now you equivocate by stating that I refuse to understand the perspectives of others. These are entirely different assertions, and neither one is particularly correct.
You don't take referential humor very well. Michael Myers face was priceless in that clip.
You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.
You didn't actually answer my question, you just used an alternative definition of the word perspective from what you had previously established was your chosen definition. You stated that I lacked perspective, now you equivocate by stating that I refuse to understand the perspectives of others. These are entirely different assertions, and neither one is particularly correct.
You don't take referential humor very well. Michael Myers face was priceless in that clip.
I did answer your question- you just dont like my answer. And I made no statement that you refuse to understand other perspectives. Again, you're twisting peoples replies to suit your needs to be 'right'. I've seen you do it time and again to others, and its not a game Im going to play with you.
But- to get back on topic. Today another vessel was boarded and towed into an Israeli naval port- no one attacked that IDF forces upon boarding and no one got shot(or beaten with pipes and thrown overboard). Wonder if this means that a message was at least sent from the prior incident....
I did answer your question- you just dont like my answer.
Yes, and if I asked you how the weather was today the answer of 'the sky is composed largely of oxygen' wouldn't thrill me either.
And I made no statement that you refuse to understand other perspectives. Again, you're twisting peoples replies to suit your needs to be 'right'.
You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives.
I'll admit, I love being right. That said, your statement could understandably construed in the way I did.
I've seen you do it time and again to others, and its not a game Im going to play with you.
It's not really a game I play. Other people are wrong, and I don't like to accept the excuse of "well i'm entitled to my opinion". I take people at the words they post, I don't pull hidden meanings from them.
Also if it's a game you're unwilling to play you certainly seem to be gaming it pretty hard.
But- to get back on topic. Today another vessel was boarded and towed into an Israeli naval port- no one attacked that IDF forces upon boarding and no one got shot(or beaten with pipes and thrown overboard). Wonder if this means that a message was at least sent from the prior incident....
It likely meant there was a more cowed or naturally less combative crew. It also likely means that the Israelis boarding operation went considerably more smoothly (as in it wasn't bungled totally). Likely every answer is correct as the event is directly influenced by the previous one.
By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.
Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.
The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.
The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though.
Yep, it is changing as Africa slowly gets some fringe levels of modernization.
I think this is what it comes down to. It's not that Africa doesn't have any strategic value to the US, it's just that the people there are viewed more like wildlife than actual people. They're so unstable and unpredictable, most foreign powers just try to circumvent them.
Africa is gonna be a happening place pretty soon.
It is now. It's rapidly becoming a major front in the war on terror. Another good way to get the US to take notice of you is to be scary to the US.
With Mubarak on his last legs, and the Muslim Brotherhood thirsting for power that could be a very big problem.
It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.
A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I take people at the words they post, I don't pull hidden meanings from them.
I assure you, you do.
For example, in the other, now dead thread on this topic, you decided that I said the IHH was the Turkish government.
By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.
Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.
Oh god, I said like not care. I'm gonna gut myself, I need someone to cut off my head if I start to scream (otherwise I can't keep my honor!). Forizzle though, I can't believe I made that mistake considering I went to find the video at the same time . As to your actual point, I suggest we vote Poseidon in the next election. Safer ports. Bush had significantly more culpability in Katrina than Obama has now, but only insofar as the head of FEMA as was appointed was totally incapable and unqualified and it just happened to bite him in the ass.
It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.
A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.
As a casual observation a not insignificant amount of the polarization of the mideast towards extremism can be attributed to the visible and antagonistic policies that Israel engages in. This in turn causes israel to engage in even harsher and more antagonistic policies. It's a vicious circle thats seen the fall of much of the secularism in the mideast and the rise of much of the fundamentalism. It's clearly just one contributing factor though.
Phryxis wrote:
No, he doesn't CARE about black people.
By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.
Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.
Imma let you finish, but that sea god crack was the most unAmericana repartee of all time.
Phryxis wrote:
The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though.
There's been a bit of lull since the Cold War ended and we became less concerned about defending the Western hemisphere, in the popular mind anyway. But with Brazil on the rise, and Chavez lurking about the region has garnered more press. Though that may also be the result of a 24 hour news cycle groping for stories.
Phryxis wrote:
It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.
A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.
Seriously. For all the flak that Mubarak takes for being a ruthless dictator he has been a massive boon to the US.
It looks like the Brotherhood has endorsed ElBaradei, which seems odd considering that he's a Western pawn. However, he's unlikely to be as hard on extremists as Mubarak, and wants to, reportedly, encourage democracy. This is a bad thing for us. We want a dictator in that country.
As to your actual point, I suggest we vote Poseidon in the next election.
And then what? Give merfolk the vote? Why do you hate freedom?
As a casual observation a not insignificant amount of the polarization of the mideast towards extremism can be attributed to the visible and antagonistic policies that Israel engages in.
Sure, but the Muslim Brotherhood was around in the 1920s, and they've always been (basically) sharia ultra-fundies.
I don't care how you slice it, any theocracy is antagonistic to the American worldview. It's just scary to me that we've got retroactives like that running things in so many places (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc).
And then what? Give merfolk the vote? Why do you hate freedom?
Freedom is what saw atlantis sunk before the seas. Never again.
Sure, but the Muslim Brotherhood was around in the 1920s, and they've always been (basically) sharia ultra-fundies.
I don't care how you slice it, any theocracy is antagonistic to the American worldview. It's just scary to me that we've got retroactives like that running things in so many places (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc)
Antagonistic in some ways, casually supportive in others. The harsh theocracy of saudi arabia gets us our oil on time, and that 'supports' the american worldview far better than a less greedy and more democratic and culturally aware mideastern state in its place would. The American worldview is best served by a complimentary Europe, a constantly fluctuating mideast, a politically unimportant africa, and a cheap and easily manipulated asia. Much of the economic strife America is currently enjoying is generated by the advancement of states that we could once simply 'use' or ignore.
Phryxis wrote:
The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though..
Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.
Mistress of minis wrote:Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.
In the greater scheme of things though, how much do you think the US actually cares about the 'Green' market emerging, hungry for.. Lithium? China's getting so heavily involved in Africa that it's going to be more and more a power thing. Already for China Africa's pretty important for oil and otherwise mainly wood. 10% of African Oil goes to China (however 32% goes to the USA) and 60% of all African Wood goes to China. That's a fuckload of wood.
Mais, je divague. Can't we just have a thread on World Diplomacy and talk it over there?
Mistress of minis wrote:Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.
In the greater scheme of things though, how much do you think the US actually cares about the 'Green' market emerging, hungry for.. Lithium? China's getting so heavily involved in Africa that it's going to be more and more a power thing. Already for China Africa's pretty important for oil and otherwise mainly wood. 10% of African Oil goes to China (however 32% goes to the USA) and 60% of all African Wood goes to China. That's a fuckload of wood.
Mais, je divague. Can't we just have a thread on World Diplomacy and talk it over there?
sA
Do you have a cel phone? Everyone I know except my gramma has one. Thats a LithIon battery for how many people? Add to that every other battery operated gadget and gizmo, from laptops to construction tools- lithium based batteries. Anything that uses a rechargable battery is going to lithium, hybrid vehicles are jsut one of the ones that will need it in larger quantities. The US will start caring about a green market when it becomes cheaper than the traditional options. And China is buying up wood because theyre having their own industrial revolution- building infrastructure like the US did in the first half of the 20th century.
And where this is on topic- is we're talking about commodoties- Israel offers intelligence, as theyre far more in tune with the middle east than we are. Until oil isnt something that can strangle the world economy- the paradig for how we interact with Israel and the middle east is going to stay the same.
Phryxis wrote:Frazz: Take it from somebody who is pretty strongly pro-Israel... A LOT more Palestinians are dying than Israelis. It's really not even a question.
And it shouldn't be. The Israelis have one of the most modern, practiced militaries in the world. The Palestinians have... Rocks. Home made rockets.
The staunchly pro-Israeli argument that one would make here is that it's not Israel's responsibility to make sure to keep the "kill ratio" down, it's their responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible.
I'm sure you're right. Carry on the good fight as I am suspending myself for five days from everything but nonMod duties for violating Dakka Rule #1.
Phryxis wrote:Frazz: Take it from somebody who is pretty strongly pro-Israel... A LOT more Palestinians are dying than Israelis. It's really not even a question.
And it shouldn't be. The Israelis have one of the most modern, practiced militaries in the world. The Palestinians have... Rocks. Home made rockets.
The staunchly pro-Israeli argument that one would make here is that it's not Israel's responsibility to make sure to keep the "kill ratio" down, it's their responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible.
I'm sure you're right. Carry on the good fight as I am suspending myself for five days from everything but nonMod duties for violating Dakka Rule #1.
I'm sure your wrong. One of the resonsibilities of an armed force is in who they kill as much as who they protect. This is why we have Hague and Geneva conventions. Disproportionality is an issuie, its also logical. Unless you are advocating genocid, then the idea that the only way to keep Palestinain fingers off triggers is to remove the fingers will not help. For every person you kill you radicalise several more, their immediate families for a start.
So are you willing to kill every Palestinian to achieve your goal of 'peace' and if you do is it called 'peace'.
Even if you think purely on the selfish factional terms if you keep raising the ante it is only a matter of time before Israel suffers a silent WMD attack, with no-one to directly point the finger at. Because that will be the only way the balance could be redressed by some. What happens then, point the fingers, and guns back at anyone and everyone?
What makes it worse is that I am sure the same feeling are being shared to rather moder moderate opponents of Islamism such as ourselves and the US. Most Arab cultures are not like what you are seeing today, historically they were people you could deal with. In fact a lot more moderate than their contemporaries. The more Arabs are vilified the more they learn to have contempt for the west and the more they sink to our expectations. Zionism just isnt worth it, and is a poor excuse morally or poltically for such a price to pay.
Yes, Frazzled. Also in WW1 we used poison gas, executed men with no trial for sleeping on duty, and imprisoned every single male in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland who had major links to Germany.
International law doesn't change without the great powers agreeing to change it, and blockades have been legal for centuries. It doesn't matter how old the precedent is, what matters is the lack of treaties that change it.
Gov't disturbed by cropped photos
By ABE SELIG
06/07/2010 19:13
Blogger reveals knife excluded from 'Mavi Marmara' photos.
Talkbacks (8) The blogosphere was in an uproar Monday regarding allegations that the Reuters news service had intentionally cropped-out incriminating details from photos released a day earlier by a Turkish newspaper showing bloodied IDF naval commandos aboard one of last week’s Gaza-bound protest ships.
The photos, which were published on Sunday in the Turkish Hürriyet daily, showed images of the commandos, their fatigues stained with blood, subdued by passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara – the only vessel where violence erupted when the commandos attempted to board.
RELATED:
Edelstein slams Reuters crop job
But when the photos were released by Reuters later in the day, bloggers immediately cried foul, taking note of discrepancies between the Turkish originals and two in particular that had been filed by the international news organization, claiming that Reuters had purposely excluded a knife from one of the photos, and a knife and even some blood in another.
At the popular blog Little- GreenFootballs.com, which initially took note of the missing knife, the blog’s founder, Charles Johnson, posted the story along with exhibits of both sets of pictures.
“That’s a very interesting way to crop the photo,” Johnson wrote. “Most people would consider that knife an important part of the context. There was a huge controversy over whether the activists were armed. Cropping out a knife, in a picture showing a soldier who’s apparently been stabbed, seems like a very odd editorial decision.
Unless,” Johnson added, “someone was trying to hide it.” Later on Sunday, LittleGreen- Footballs posted a second story featuring yet another cropped photo, this time showing one of the commandos apparently being dragged across the deck of the Mavi Marmara with passengers standing above him. On the right side of the Turkish original, a serrated knife is clearly visible in the hand of one of the passengers, along with blood running along what appears to be one of the ship’s banisters.
Additionally, the bloodied hand of another soldier, presumably sprawled out on the deck behind the first soldier, can be seen in the background.
Yet in the shot initially released by Reuters, none of these details are visible, as the photo shows only the first soldier being dragged and a man in an orange life vest standing above him.
“One picture cropped to remove a knife might be explained as incompetence or a simple mistake,” wrote Johnson.
“But now we have two pictures from the ‘peace activists’ that were cropped by someone at Reuters to remove knives in the hands of the activists as they attempted to take soldiers hostage.” Bloggers at his Web site took similar notice.
“Once might be oversight or carelessness,” one blogger, “Cato the Elder,” wrote. “Twice is an agenda.” At TheAugeanStables.com, blogger Richard Landes portrayed the apparent discrepancies through a different lens, citing each as being subservient to different audiences.
“The Turkish journal published these photos because they, and their Turkish audience, are proud of the damage they inflicted,” Landes wrote. “Just like the Egyptians have a museum to their (brief moment of) victory in 1973, so too the Turks now have a moment where they had the upper hand on Israeli soldiers. In a tribal warrior honor-shame culture, these photos are great.” But he then pointed out where the pictures could backfire.
“Of course, oops,” Landes continued. “That was supposed to be a peace-activist flotilla, with nothing but love for the whole world. And indeed, the worldwide indignation over Israel’s killing the nine on board depends on this story. If they were a bunch of bloodthirsty, street-fighting Jihadis, armed for close quarter combat, then the story doesn’t quite work.” Other bloggers referred to a controversy that erupted during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, in which Reuters acknowledged – after a post at LittleGreenFootballs pointed it out – that two photos taken by Adnan Hajj, a Lebanese freelance photographer who worked with the organization for more than a decade, had been “digitally altered” to add plumes of smoke to a picture of Beirut in the aftermath of an IAF air strike.
Later, blogger “Dr. Rusty Shackleford” of “The Jawa Report” published a Hajj photo that had been captioned as showing an IAF jet firing ground-attack missiles during an air strike on the southern Lebanese village of Nabatiya, when in fact the jet had only deployed a defensive flare, which was later doctored by Hajj to create the appearance of multiple projectiles.
After the allegations surfaced, Reuters announced that it had ended its relationship with Hajj, who claimed that he had been trying to remove dust marks from the photos and had made mistakes due to bad lighting conditions.
Reuters also pulled more than 900 of Hajj’s photos from its archive and fired its chief photographer for the Middle East.
On Monday, a Reuters representative attributed the cropped photos to “normal editorial practice” and added that once the omission of the knives was realized, the original photos were also released for print.
“Reuters is committed to accurate and impartial reporting,” the representative’s statement read.
“All images that pass over our wire follow a strict editorial evaluation and selection process.
The images in question were made available in Istanbul, and following normal editorial practice were prepared for dissemination which included cropping at the edges. When we realized that a dagger was inadvertently cropped from the images, Reuters immediately moved the original set as well.”
The fact that have a knife isn't horribly distrubing, most outdoorsmen carry some form of utility knife.
If it was brandished during boarding... then you have a very different situation. I don't know rules of engagement, but even in home defense a person wielding a weapon that appears to be capable and planning to attack you is a already "using" lethal force.
Polonius wrote:The fact that have a knife isn't horribly distrubing, most outdoorsmen carry some form of utility knife.
If it was brandished during boarding... then you have a very different situation. I don't know rules of engagement, but even in home defense a person wielding a weapon that appears to be capable and planning to attack you is a already "using" lethal force.
Lethal force had likely already been established given the passengers effort to throw one commando down a floor and their initial attack with pipes. The bigger issue is the integrity of the news outlets involved.
Good stuff there, Fraz. It seems the more information that comes out about the flotilla and the people behind the anti Israeli propaganda that went with it, the better Israel looks.
Interesting stuff Frazz... I have never had any faith in mainstream media reporting anyway, so it's no surprise to me, but I can always hope they get caught out.
As Helen Thomas did...
But, I want to be consistent on this thing. The details here as far as who was meaner to who, who lost their nerve first, this doesn't really matter.
The fact is, the Israelis are trained soldiers with specific mission parameters outlined. The people on the boat are just people on a boat. As far as who initiated hostilities, clearly it's going to be the people with no training and no clear leadership. They're mad at Israel, some Israelis showed up, they went to town.
It's less about them than it is a mystery as to why the Israeli commanders thought it was going to work out. The fact that people died really isn't the fault of those people, nor the fault of the Israeli commandos. It's just a sad symptom of what happens when two emotionally charged sides are not on the same page.
The REAL question here is if the blockade is fair/moral/justified. That's what the IHH is trying to work against, that's what Israel is trying to argue.
The deaths of these people amplify the tension of the debate, but they really aren't relevant to the actual topic.
I see a lot of straw clutching here. While Israeli apologists are crowing over some doctored images showing that not everyone was playing nice, something we already knew they are illogically silent about other missing images. The footage shown by activists of commandoes murdering unarmed crew of the aid flotilla. All confiscated, all missing.
Phryxis wrote:
The fact is, the Israelis are trained soldiers with specific mission parameters outlined. The people on the boat are just people on a boat. As far as who initiated hostilities, clearly it's going to be the people with no training and no clear leadership. They're mad at Israel, some Israelis showed up, they went to town.
When Israeli commandoes fast roped onto the ship they were asking for trouble, they cause anger and that anger may well be too much for some. It was an affront to these people and unlike the commandoes they didnt know what was happening. All they knew was that they were under threat, then suddenly amidst the fear and confusion the enemy who has oppressed their friends appwears straight in front of them. Its hardly supruising they didnt act with the same professionalism, also allowing for the usual MO for Israel, which amounts to a thinly veiled 'kill em all' approach the activists had good reason to consider themselves in deadly danger. They were right.
At least you have some integrity in admitting this. Soldiers always have a higher bar to keep than civilians, after all they are operating under direct political orders and are expected to show some professionalism.
Furthermore those who killed six 'murderous mercenaries' killed a number of people who clearly were not.
Phryxis wrote:
It's less about them than it is a mystery as to why the Israeli commanders thought it was going to work out. The fact that people died really isn't the fault of those people, nor the fault of the Israeli commandos. It's just a sad symptom of what happens when two emotionally charged sides are not on the same page.
I do fault the commandoes they got too close too fast to people who were very likely frightened, panicked and angry. They should have handled the incursion better. This is taken in isolation of the opinion that they shouldnt have been there at all.
Phryxis wrote:
The REAL question here is if the blockade is fair/moral/justified. That's what the IHH is trying to work against, that's what Israel is trying to argue.
The deaths of these people amplify the tension of the debate, but they really aren't relevant to the actual topic.
Laws are forged and rationalised on account of events. its is not irrelevant to the issue of the blockade.
Phryxis wrote:...but I can always hope they get caught out.
As Helen Thomas did...
Sometimes people feel they have to speak out against injustice. Even journalists. You wouldnt have to go far to bump into an Israeli apologist journalist who is biased to the point of speaking out for injustice. They dont hide or feel the need to hide. Isn't it time they were outed too, aftger all someone who speaks 'out of turn' in support of murder and injustice is more questionable than one who speaks out of turn against. It's not like Helen Thomas spoke out saying its perfectly alright for one faction to be oppressed, unlike say Krauthammer.
Thomas is getting this sort of reasction because she takes the opposite stance to most, only the deluded would think washington media is immune to bias on middle east issues.
Phryxis wrote:The fact is, the Israelis are trained soldiers with specific mission parameters outlined. The people on the boat are just people on a boat. As far as who initiated hostilities, clearly it's going to be the people with no training and no clear leadership. They're mad at Israel, some Israelis showed up, they went to town.
It was an unfortunate decision on the part of those involved, but getting shot at with tear gas, while choppers are about to drop commandos onto the ship; that sounds pretty unsettling. If the goal was to stop the ships peacefully, many other options were available, and as the IDF supposedly 'knows' that several were terrorists, it isn't particularly complicated to figure out who made the larger error.
Jamming the propellers, then tug-boating the ships in. If the ships refused to be tugged in, they sit in the water for a day, then you resort to force. The IDF basically, instantly resorted to force, and it ended very badly for them.
Orlanth wrote:I see a lot of straw clutching here. While Israeli apologists are crowing over some doctored images showing that not everyone was playing nice, something we already knew they are illogically silent about other missing images. The footage shown by activists of commandoes murdering unarmed crew of the aid flotilla. All confiscated, all missing.
There is no doubt that the IDF confiscated, and possibly destroyed, a large amount of evidence. I don't even find that slightly surprising. My guess would be something like 4 hours of relevant tape from different cameras, just gone. It just makes absolutely no sense that one minute there is footage on the deck, and the next... guess what! NO FOOTAGE. Individual photos have magical properties, that make them very easy to brand. Several hours of footage, not so much.
When Israeli commandoes fast roped onto the ship they were asking for trouble, they cause anger and that anger may well be too much for some. It was an affront to these people and unlike the commandoes they didnt know what was happening. All they knew was that they were under threat, then suddenly amidst the fear and confusion the enemy who has oppressed their friends appwears straight in front of them.
As far as the IDF was concerned, they were civilian activists. You can actually see the pressure in their current rhetoric, but I can't recall the name of their main talking head at this point. The common line is that there was one boat, with a handful of terrorists on it. None of this is actually backed up by substantial evidence, and it is obvious that they are trying to forget the other 80% of the flotilla.
Now Iran is sending Naval vessels... or something. The PR battle continues...
Its hardly supruising they didnt act with the same professionalism, also allowing for the usual MO for Israel, which amounts to a thinly veiled 'kill em all' approach the activists had good reason to consider themselves in deadly danger. They were right.
Demonstrators armed with clubs and slingshots. Neither of which actually pose a threat, until you drop soldiers directly into the crowd. Everyone on that mission, had to have some sort of idea what they were in for. Not much a soldier can do in a situation like that, except try to remain calm until you freak out, and start firing at stuff with a pistol. It's unfortunate, and the IDF does have a very aggressive personality.
Sometimes people feel they have to speak out against injustice. Even journalists. You wouldnt have to go far to bump into an Israeli apologist journalist who is biased to the point of speaking out for injustice. They dont hide or feel the need to hide. Isn't it time they were outed too, aftger all someone who speaks 'out of turn' in support of murder and injustice is more questionable than one who speaks out of turn against. It's not like Helen Thomas spoke out saying its perfectly alright for one faction to be oppressed, unlike say Krauthammer.
Thomas is getting this sort of reasction because she takes the opposite stance to most, only the deluded would think washington media is immune to bias on middle east issues.
Helen Thomas seems to have made a mistake, if not in her intent, then in her phrasing. I have gotten sick of seeing that damn clip, though... it is obvious that she is being pushed to the side, because of her opinion. An immediate apology, and general explanation; there really isn't much more you can ask for. It was basically gotcha! journalism, but it was her mistake, and she has wisely chosen to retire. Hopefully she can continue to express her opinions, by the standards that she has set, and the obstacles she has overcome.
The footage shown by activists of commandoes murdering unarmed crew of the aid flotilla.
Why do you insist on employing such obviously loaded language?
There are certain words that tip the rhetorical hand, and expose an appeal to emotionalism. People constantly refer to "illegal" activities, yet they never specify the legislative context in which those activities are illegal. They call the deaths on the flotilla "murders" without proving that murders actually ocurred.
I have seen no proof of illegality, I have seen no proof of murder.
I think we all can agree that the initial hostilities were initiated by the flotilla. Commandos attempted to fast rope in with non-lethal weapons in hand, and were brutally physically assaulted. It's actually a bit of a miracle that none of the Israelis were killed at this point. We know this for a fact, we've seen the video of it.
The shooting of people engaged in these sorts of assaults against your comrades is simply NOT murder.
The ONLY way that a "murder" occurred, is if the flotilla members were subdued, Israelis were no longer in danger, and then at that point, flotilla members were deliberately shot. I have heard countless allegations that this is the case, but I have seen no proof.
All that said, the fact that you presume to label the events "murder" without supplying any proof on the matter, exposes you as intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative.
All they knew was that they were under threat
They were not under threat. To say they were under threat presupposes that the Israelis intended to shoot them. They did not.
If I approach a police officer, and speak politely to him, I am not under any threat. If I start hitting him with a steel pipe, I will rapidly be under threat. The choice to escalate hostilities into violence was made by the flotilla.
You're patently misrepresenting the situation.
That said, I reiterate: It's a mystery to me why the Israeli commanders didn't anticipate this happening and take steps to prevent it. While the fault of the initiation of violence is entirely with the people in the flotilla, it's also not surprising, and shouldn't have been such to the Israelis. I still believe that it was a surpise, and not some calculated attempt at getting attacked so they could shoot back.
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that the Israelis felt that they would not get much resistance, and considered a more aggressive non-lethal suppression of the crew to be excessive, and thus bad PR. As we all know, the Israelis are often loudly criticized for the ugly wounds caused by rubber bullets, etc. Of course, that's yet another strike against your portrayal of the Israelis as excessively brutal. Clearly they erred on the side of non-aggression so severely it actually CREATED problems.
Laws are forged and rationalised on account of events. its is not irrelevant to the issue of the blockade.
It really is. Yes, laws are based on events... But you don't change the laws because an operation went haywire and people died. You don't stop stopping people for speeding because a speeder pulls a gun and shoots at a cop.
Thomas is getting this sort of reasction because she takes the opposite stance to most
Another misrepresentation. She got this sort of reaction because she took her stance using ignorant, anti-semetic language. It's one thing to criticize Israel. It's another to say they should "go back to Africa." That's the battle cry of an ignorant klansman, not a (supposedly) esteemed journalist.
Personally I think Helen Thomas is an intellectually bankrupt buffoon, and I fundamentally disagree with her politics, but I fully support her right to have an opinion. I think, though, that if she can't pursue her chosen profession with a higher degree of professionalism, she sould probably step down. And she has, so at least we can agree at that.
The common line is that there was one boat, with a handful of terrorists on it.
The use of the word "terrorist" is a calculated appeal to American (and generally Western) support. It's certainly not lost on me that Israel is playing constant rhetorical games, and I don't mean to suggest that they're not.
The people on these boats were not "terrorists" or at least they were not behaving as terrorists in this situation. I'd describe them as a "rioting mob."
I mean, we have a situation in which 4 million people are being blockaded, where basic goods liked tinned food and basic spices are not allowed. A blockade that was heightened because Palestine voted in a government that Israel didn’t like. A military operation is undertaken to enforce this blockade, it goes wrong and people get killed.
People start debate the fine points of blockading in international waters. They debate the finer points of who started the operation.
There is little debate on why the blockade is in place, and what exactly it is achieving. That’s the only real issue, the only one that matters in terms of achieving long term peace in the region.
"All the checkpoints, I don't mind, but to deny me my curry? CURSE YOU DAVID BEN-GURION! CURSE YOU!"
There is little debate on why the blockade is in place, and what exactly it is achieving. That’s the only real issue, the only one that matters in terms of achieving long term peace in the region.
That's what I'm saying. The details of who shot who when/first/why/where is not really relevant.
"All the checkpoints, I don't mind, but to deny me my curry? CURSE YOU DAVID BEN-GURION! CURSE YOU!"
Fair point, I worded it a little strangely. If it was only spices it wouldn't be an issue, but spices are a good example of how extensive, strict and petty the blockade is.
That's what I'm saying. The details of who shot who when/first/why/where is not really relevant.
Phryxis wrote:
They were not under threat. To say they were under threat presupposes that the Israelis intended to shoot them. They did not.
If I approach a police officer, and speak politely to him, I am not under any threat. If I start hitting him with a steel pipe, I will rapidly be under threat. The choice to escalate hostilities into violence was made by the flotilla.
I'm not sure that's the best analogy here. A police officer is not very much like a commando fast-roping onto your ship from a helicopter. Sure, they're both armed, but the context is very different. I'd feel very threatened if a commando fast-roped onto my ship. Particularly if I was from a nation which doesn't always get along with the nation that sent the fast-roping commandos.
That being said, the people on the flotilla should have anticipated feeling threatened, and installed some agreed response in the event that they were boarded. Of course its possible they did exactly that, and the agreed response was "wail on the boarders with pipes". However given the response aboard the other vessels in the flotilla, and the absence of significant weaponry from the boat, I don't think that's very likely.
I think its far more likely that the violence was the result of a nervous reaction to a tense situation in which a group of activists came under duress far earlier than anticipated; which was itself further enhanced by the brutal reputation of the IDF in the rest of Middle East.
But yeah, this is all really just a diversion from the central issue of the blockades appropriateness. I'm of the mind that Israel should let more aid into Gaza than they do, and that many of the contraband restrictions are ridiculous in light of certain other circumstances in the area; primarily the unreliable power grid. I think that the blockade is probably something that will have to remain in place so long as Hamas is in charge, and I don't think that will change until certain restrictions are lifted.
I'm not sure that's the best analogy here. A police officer is not very much like a commando fast-roping onto your ship from a helicopter.
Well, sure, but amend it this way: Let's say you're at a march, demonstrating for some cause you like, and riot cops are sent to keep things in order. You don't need to be scared of them. If you then decide to start hitting them with pipes, really that's when your life starts being at risk.
Of course its possible they did exactly that, and the agreed response was "wail on the boarders with pipes".
I'm not an expert on modern shipping, but I don't think that it's standard to have steel bars laying around to be snatched up at random. It's not like there's sails in need of belaying pins. Also, there were clearly slingshots, which is not something you bring along on a standard peace cruise. I think we can safely assume that they intended to attack the Israeli boarders, and prepared for it well in advance.
It's hard to imagine what these people thought was going to happen. You don't just beat a bunch of Israeli commandos to near death, throw them overboard and then win a free pass to Gaza. You can safely assume that the Israelis can up the ante to a level far, FAR beyond anything you've got.
I don't believe the flotilla meant to get their members shot and killed, but it's hard to understand what they thought would happen attacking as they did. Given the past behavior of some Muslim ideologues, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually inteded to martyr themselves.
Phryxis wrote:Well, sure, but amend it this way: Let's say you're at a march, demonstrating for some cause you like, and riot cops are sent to keep things in order. You don't need to be scared of them. If you then decide to start hitting them with pipes, really that's when your life starts being at risk.
A better analogy based on many different demonstrations I have been to.
There were anarchists that threw glass bottles. Not particularly dangerous to people besides the legitimate protesters in the crowd. That would be assuming that there were in fact some trouble makers on the boat, perhaps even terrorist in some peoples eyes. Is it possible that a planned attack occurred? Obviously, but not particularly likely.
Take note of the fact that building supplies were a large part of the aid shipment, and in those supplies were bound to be some form of blunt object. The crew could have opened up, and distributed 2x4s in less than 5 minutes. It doesn't matter, because they weren't Ak47s and RPGs. I haven't seen all the events that led up to the boarding, so I really couldn't say when they pulled out the lead pipes.
I'm not an expert on modern shipping, but I don't think that it's standard to have steel bars laying around to be snatched up at random. It's not like there's sails in need of belaying pins. Also, there were clearly slingshots, which is not something you bring along on a standard peace cruise. I think we can safely assume that they intended to attack the Israeli boarders, and prepared for it well in advance.
Building supplies. Just as reasonable a claim as blocking Gaza from substantial aid, for reasons of national security.
It's hard to imagine what these people thought was going to happen. You don't just beat a bunch of Israeli commandos to near death, throw them overboard and then win a free pass to Gaza. You can safely assume that the Israelis can up the ante to a level far, FAR beyond anything you've got.
And look fabulous doing it!
I don't believe the flotilla meant to get their members shot and killed, but it's hard to understand what they thought would happen attacking as they did. Given the past behavior of some Muslim ideologues, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually inteded to martyr themselves.
No one has seen much of any footage, that would contradict the entire flotilla in their claims of being demonstrators, and not terrorists.
A small group of people can easily rile up a large group of scared demonstrators. There were around 2-3 dozen people on the deck, most had weapons. I agree that in general, it could look like a planned attack, but even on that note I would still call it a defense. One which was instigated by fear, and use of tactics completely inappropriate to the situation, from the side of the IDF.
Phryxis wrote:
I'm not an expert on modern shipping, but I don't think that it's standard to have steel bars laying around to be snatched up at random. It's not like there's sails in need of belaying pins. Also, there were clearly slingshots, which is not something you bring along on a standard peace cruise. I think we can safely assume that they intended to attack the Israeli boarders, and prepared for it well in advance.
That's certainly possible, and its far more in line with martyrdom than suicide bombing, or flying a plane into a building.
The metal pipes aren't especially worrying to me. I've been around enough large boats in my life to know that plenty random industrial detritus can generally be found aboard the less desirable examples, and none of the ships in the flotilla are particularly nice. Also, based on the pictures I've seen, the pipes look like replacement railing posts.
The slingshot and IED are worrying, but I've known American protesters to carry weapons for the purposes of making a statement, or simply because they actually think they'll get to use them. The fact that they only seem to have found one of each tells me that, even violence was the intent of some, it wasn't the intent of all the people aboard.
dogma wrote: The slingshot and IED are worrying, but I've known American protesters to carry weapons for the purposes of making a statement, or simply because they actually think they'll get to use them. The fact that they only seem to have found one of each tells me that, even violence was the intent of some, it wasn't the intent of all the people aboard.
What IED? Improvised explosive device? I don't recall hearing about that one, and I can't find any significant information regarding it.
There were several slingshots, and I have little to no idea what several slingshots would present as a threat to Israel. To throw the IED? I don't understand...
The Daily Mail published a picture of an IED, which supposedly was found on the aid flotilla.
However, on further examination, the photos appear to be from youtube, which leads me to doubt their authenticity. Mostly because I'm absolutely that the Daily Mail is not above using unrelated photos to drum up a story.
dogma wrote:The Daily Mail published a picture of an IED, which supposedly was found on the aid flotilla.
However, on further examination, the photos appear to be from youtube, which leads me to doubt their authenticity. Mostly because I'm absolutely that the Daily Mail is not above using unrelated photos to drum up a story.
There are certain words that tip the rhetorical hand, and expose an appeal to emotionalism. People constantly refer to "illegal" activities, yet they never specify the legislative context in which those activities are illegal. They call the deaths on the flotilla "murders" without proving that murders actually ocurred.
I have seen no proof of illegality, I have seen no proof of murder.
I think we all can agree that the initial hostilities were initiated by the flotilla. Commandos attempted to fast rope in with non-lethal weapons in hand, and were brutally physically assaulted. It's actually a bit of a miracle that none of the Israelis were killed at this point. We know this for a fact, we've seen the video of it.
The shooting of people engaged in these sorts of assaults against your comrades is simply NOT murder.
The ONLY way that a "murder" occurred, is if the flotilla members were subdued, Israelis were no longer in danger, and then at that point, flotilla members were deliberately shot. I have heard countless allegations that this is the case, but I have seen no proof.
All they knew was that they were under threat
They were not under threat. To say they were under threat presupposes that the Israelis intended to shoot them. They did not.
This is the conclusion of the autopsy conducted by the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine, which also did autopsies on the eight other Turkish citizens killed in the Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara ferry and five other smaller boats in the so-called Freedom Flotilla. Of the other eight dead, the medical examiners found that five had been shot in the back, or in the back of the head.
[u]American Youth Furkan DoganShot in the back and the back of the head by Israeli commandos: American youth Furkan Dogan
This critically important information has not appeared in US news reports. Some American news organizations have left out the autopsy information entirely from their reports as of Saturday. CNN, in its report on Friday, did note that five of the nine were shot in the head, and at close range, but the all-important fact that most of the victims were shot from behind was left out. (By Sunday, CNN wasn't even mentioning that one of the nine victims was an American citizen). ABC had the same information on Thursday, again without mentioning the shots from behind. In its article on Friday, the NY Times had yet to even name Dogan, the American victim, much less mention the bullets that hit him or how he was shot. On Sunday and Monday, the Times was still silent.
And yet, if you’re trying to establish what happened on that ship, the direction of the firing, not just the number of bullets, or the distance from which they were fired, is crucial.
If he was shot in the back of the head, he was facing away from the israelis, and no threat
NOTE on both of those pictures, there is no blood on the knives, and they look like the knives I have in the kitchen.
So possibly grabbed in haste to defend oneself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That IED looks more like a poorly made bong to me, isn't that plastic tube in the neck of the bottle?
or maybe an attempt at blood transfusion, seems to be red liquid in bottle.
I dunno man, I've always found the Israeli uniforms to be a bit doofy looking. They've got a really 1950's style of color, cut, etc. Just not very impressive.
The metal pipes aren't especially worrying to me.
I'm not exactly worried either, they're metal pipes, it's not like they're controlled ordinance. I'm more curious as to how the people had so many of them to hand when the commandos showed up. To me that suggests planning. It'd also be planning if they had set up sandbags on the deck to hide behind, but that would be defensive in nature. The pipes suggest to me that they had planned early on to hit something, which isn't something a peaceful protestor does.
The simple fact is that these people weren't peaceful protestors. They planned to have a riot, and they had one. That said, they're also not terrorists. They're a rioting mob. They just happened to do it in an odd location (a boat).
There were several slingshots, and I have little to no idea what several slingshots would present as a threat to Israel.
Well, clearly they're not as scary as a machine gun (or even a pistol), but a good slingshot is no joke. If a ball bearing hits you in the head, it could certainly kill. It's very similar to the metal pipes. Not exactly terrifying, but also something you don't need unless you plan to try to hurt people.
This is the conclusion of the autopsy conducted by the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine
When the Israelis say something, everyone is in a rush to take it with a 40 lb bag of salt. When the Turks say something, we not only believe it unequivocally, but we extend it to mean more than it really does?
That's not exactly an objective standard.
If he was shot in the back of the head, he was facing away from the israelis, and no threat
How long does it take to turn your head? What if you're turning your head to shout back to your friends "hey, bring more metal pipes to hit them with?"
How come Israelis have to prove everything beyond as shadow of your reckless speculation, when their opponents need only refrain from completely disproving your wildest accusations, and then they're assumed true?
Come on now, this is proof of absolutely nothing.
Imagine you're an Israeli commando. You're fast roping down, and you can clearly see your comrades being viciously and repeatedly beaten with metal pipes. You hit the deck, and people start to charge you, waving pipes. You shoot at them, but because they're running, and you just slid out of a helicopter, onto the deck of a moving ship, your accuracy isn't perfect. Some of your shots miss the guy charging you and hit people behind him.
Or...
Imagine you're an Israeli commando. You've just been hit several times with a metal pipe. From your back, you pull your sidearm to shoot the person hitting you, but it's hard, because your left arm is broken, so you can't support your main hand. Everyone sees the gun come out, so they turn to run, but as you try to shoot the guy clubbing you, you miss and hit somebody next to him the back of the head.
Wow, that could NEVER happen, right?
Much more likely the Israelis just lined everyone up and shot them, but didn't have the experience with murdering innocent people to know to shoot them in the front. That doesn't even make sense in your own fantasy world, because in that world, Israelis are ALL veteran murderers of innocents.
The lack of intellectual honesty is stunning.
Honestly, I don't trust information from either side as there is to much incentive to skew, spin, or fabricate information.
OMG! WHY DO YOU SO PRO-ISRAEL HATE RACIST AM? YOU LIE HATE! NOT-JOO IS ONLY TRUE!
Have any of you seen the IDF Youtube channel? I'm personally more with the Israelis on this one, but that's just a joke. Basically a "Select-and-Collate" job of what makes Israel look nice.
smiling Assassin wrote:Have any of you seen the IDF Youtube channel? I'm personally more with the Israelis on this one, but that's just a joke. Basically a "Select-and-Collate" job of what makes Israel look nice.
sA
This kind of soft support given the situation is confusing to me. It's clear that the flotilla, or at least this single boat intended to be resistive in it's attempts to bring aid to gaza but the Israelis did fastrope onto an aid ship in international waters which resulted in the deaths of nine. They did this in order to enforce a blockage that prevents aid from reaching a region that they are intentionally starving and within which they perform common and highly destructive military acts. They do this under the auspices of a hostile and terrorist 'government' within the region, but given that they have killed at least fifty times as many Palestinians in the last decade than have been killed by rocket attacks that reasoning is at the very least ludicrously flawed. All this occurs while they continue to settle and forcefully relocate people in the west bank and it is done with the clear and of stated goal of jerusalem being the new Israeli capitol.
At what point does israel stop being the poor nation beset on all sides and instead becomes an aggressive land grabbing regime that flagrantly and commonly disregards and violates international law?
We're broadening here, but I'll stick with you if I can. In stopping and boarding a vessel that held clearly violent Israeli-hostile persons, which was trying to break a blockade engaged to stop the influx of arms into the country, arms used on a highly frequent basis to harass and kill Israeli civilians, Israel are well within their rights. The blockade imposes arbitrary and destructive restrictions but has a firm basis in cold logic.
They don't want casualties, casualties come from the rockets, the rockets come from Gaza, Gaza is supplied from abroad. Is Israel is blockading Gaza in order to starve kids? Of course not.
We're broadening here, but I'll stick with you if I can. In stopping and boarding a vessel that held clearly violent Israeli-hostile persons, which was trying to break a blockade engaged to stop the influx of arms into the country, arms used on a highly frequent basis to harass and kill Israeli civilians, Israel are well within their rights.
Are they? A turkish manned and registered aid fleet that had previously announced it's intentions and which was sailing visibly along a route pre planned and co ordinated was boarded forcibly in international waters. You are using some fairly partisan language in noting that they were attempting to break a blockade given that they were several hours from actually attempting doing so. Israels rights concerning the blockade of an occupied territory actually rest in quite the gray area. Many institutions, the UN and the EU included don't formally recognize the blockade and while sovereignty is paramount there is quite a bit of confliction in the international laws that Israel uses to legitimize it's actions.
The blockade imposes arbitrary and destructive restrictions but has a firm basis in cold logic.
The issue with cold logic is that logic is subjective outside of mathematical quandaries. The UN the US and the EU are all on the record stating the belief that the blockade does more to harm israels safety than it does ensure it, and israel in one night killed (in aid workers) a number of people totaling a third of the casualties it has ever sustained from rocket attacks.
They don't want casualties, casualties come from the rockets, the rockets come from Gaza, Gaza is supplied from abroad. Is Israel is blockading Gaza in order to starve kids? Of course not.
Actually depending on who you asks it is. Israel is on record in statements and in its actions as wanting gaza as fully israeli territory. The same for the west bank and jerusalem. Many experts believe that the blockade is a continued effort under the guise of "security" to enable Israeli colonization into the weak and defenseless Palestinian state which is "legitimized" by the election of hamas and continued Palestinian hostilities. There is a strong movement within israel for a sort of jewish manifest destiny concerning the holy land and there are strong lobbies for the settlement of Palestine as jewish territory.
Also your statement can be pretty easily turned around.
They don't want casualties, casualties come from the rockets, the rockets come from Israel, Israel is supplied from abroad. Is Gaza defending itself in order to kill civilians? Of course not.
Given they they are both foreign supplied and they both commit hostile acts against the other I'm not sure why you are siding with the Israelis when they are the occupiers and have killed an order of magnitude more civilians than Hamas.
Phryxis wrote:
The simple fact is that these people weren't peaceful protestors. They planned to have a riot, and they had one. That said, they're also not terrorists. They're a rioting mob. They just happened to do it in an odd location (a boat).
My point is that, while they certainly weren't peaceful protesters simply because there was a riot, it isn't a simple fact that the riot was generally premeditated. Premeditated by some members of the group, certainly, as at least some people brought slingshots and, allegedly, firebombs. Not necessarily premeditated on the part of others as the pipes and knives can be explained by things other than premeditation.
Now, this isn't a point against the commandos. When you're attacked by a group it doesn't matter at all which members of the group planned to attack, and which members didn't. Its simply a point based on my interpretation of necessity with respect to the evidence provided.
sebster wrote:There is little debate on why the blockade is in place, and what exactly it is achieving. That’s the only real issue, the only one that matters in terms of achieving long term peace in the region.
That's what I'm saying. The details of who shot who when/first/why/where is not really relevant.
Actually we covered the issues you wish to discuss, this is thr fourth or fifth thread on the incident. some did try to adfress the legality, intent and backing for the Gaza embargo. When some of the responces were not sufficiently pro-Israeli the threads were locked under grounds of them being 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
The footage shown by activists of commandoes murdering unarmed crew of the aid flotilla.
Why do you insist on employing such obviously loaded language?
I am not loaded. we have numberous eye witness reports from credible persons that unarmed activists were shot. some claimed to have filmed this and the footage has bee confiscated. meanwhile cropped photos become a major issue in the Zionist press. I can imagine a guy in a cutting room of a Turkish newspaper being biased and unprofessional right now, but this is being taken is indicative of all press.
Meawhile the so called hero who killed sie persons denegrates the activists as 'murderous mercenaries' and is due a decoration by all accounts for the blood he shed.
It was an aid flotilla. If it was full of weapons the Israelis would have been pointing them out for all to see.
To consider my reaction to this brutality loaded is unfair. I see people dead who wanted to relieve the misrery of others,. So far they have been vilified and their deaths justified by Zionist apologists who in turn complain if the record of any detractors is less than 100% perfect. Phryxis unless you are willing to condemn the confiscation of the independent footage and consider the Israeli version of events highly suspect until it is released then you have little reason to claim to be impartial, let alone have any credibility of cause of judgements in pointing out a couple of cropped images.
When some of the responces were not sufficiently pro-Israeli the threads were locked under grounds of them being 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'.
Right, totally, cause AIPAC even has implanted their own moderators on this particular miniatures wargaming site. How far does the Jewish banking conspiracy reach!?!ONE!
And yet, here you are, happily typing out your viewpoints, despite the Zionist oppressor. Maybe they're just too busy murdering innocents to keep up on their censoring duty? If we'd just give more foreign aid to Israel, I'm sure they could hire the necessary staff to fulfill your victimization fantasies.
we have numberous eye witness reports from credible persons that unarmed activists were shot.
Wrong. There are two kinds of people that saw that thing up close: Commandos and activists. Neither are 'credible.'
That said, I'm not saying that unarmed people DIDN'T get shot. I have no way of making that claim with any real support, and, unlike you, I don't like to make unsupported claims.
It could be that every one that was shot was swinging a metal bar at the very moment the bullet struck them. It could be that they were lined up on the railing and shot. I don't know. But, unlike you, I know what I don't know.
I never claimed to know what happend. What I did say, was that it's quite easy to imagine numerous scenarios in which activists would get shot without it being "murder" as you repeatedly insist on portraying it. I'm not saying that those scenarios DID happen. I'm saying that because you have no proof that they didn't, and because they're perfectly likely to have happened, then accusing people of murder is speculative at best.
The fact that you insist on doing it shows a clear lack of objectivism and a clear disregard for accuracy.
To consider my reaction to this brutality loaded is unfair.
Dude. Imagine that you're lying on the deck of a ship being struck repeatedly with a steel pipe, and you have a pistol on your thigh. Are you seriously telling me you'd just wait for darkness to take you?
Stop telling me that you're not using loaded terms. It's ALL you're capable of producing. "Murder." "Brutality." "Bloodshed."
You're not going to impress me with this sort of emotionalism. If you're just venting for your own benefit, then please stop directing your responses at me, so I know not to waste my time trying to find a real point in them.
Phryxis unless you are willing to condemn the confiscation of the independent footage and consider the Israeli version of events highly suspect until it is released then you have little reason to claim to be impartial
First off, I never said I was impartial. In fact, I've said in the past that I'm generally pro-Israeli. I'm not saying I'm impartial. I'm saying you're so obviously incapable of impartiality, it's laughable.
That said, I DO find the Israeli version of events to be highly suspect, just as I find the activists version to be highly suspect. They're two sides fighting a PR battle, they're both manipulating everything they can to benefit themselves. I certainly "condemn" it, but it's so expected, and so unsurprising to me, that I have a hard time judging either side especially harshly.
So I don't trust what anybody is saying. Instead, I look at the facts available, and judge what I think happened based on things that can't be falsified, or that neither side debates. We have dead bodies. We have video of beatings and images of injured Israelis. We know that the Israelis fast roped in with non-lethal weapons and sidearms. We know that the activists had metal pipes on hand to meet them. We know that a melee ensued, and activists died.
With all these givens, we can piece together some conclusions that don't overly rely on what the Israelis or activists are telling us.
That's all I've tried to do.
You're in here screeching about murder, brutality and blood, demanding that I codemn this, or admit that... You're simply not interested in logic or objectivism.
So, as I said, if that's the only way you can respond to this situation, that's your deal. But if you actually have any interest in convincing me of the validity of your viewpoint, it's going to take logic and facts, not drama and emotions.
Most people who post on dakka, have an eye for detail.
So examine the facts.
What has israel embargoed, and what is it's terrorist uses
The cropped photo's, I saw no blood on the knives.
The IED, was the funniest looking bomb I've seen.
Then the chicken or the egg question. Did activists grab what was to hand because the israelis were firing, or did the israelis only fire because they were threatened by an armed mob.
And why was that american boy shot in the legs, and the back of his head. Because if he was shot in the head first! Why shoot him in the legs.
And if he was shot in the legs first, and was thus incapacitated, why then shoot him in the head?
A 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
loki old fart wrote:Most people who post on dakka, have an eye for detail.
So examine the facts.
What has israel embargoed, and what is it's terrorist uses
The cropped photo's, I saw no blood on the knives.
The IED, was the funniest looking bomb I've seen.
Then the chicken or the egg question. Did activists grab what was to hand because the israelis were firing, or did the israelis only fire because they were threatened by an armed mob.
And why was that american boy shot in the legs, and the back of his head. Because if he was shot in the head first! Why shoot him in the legs.
And if he was shot in the legs first, and was thus incapacitated, why then shoot him in the head?
A 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
Loki, if you are expert marksman enough to pick out targets in that kind of a situation you really should be giving lessons.
When the bullets start flying in the middle of a fight like what was going on there, a huge mosh of people moving around with a lot armed and attacking, they are going to travel until they are stopped one way or another. It would be nice to have a gun with magic bullets that don't hit bystanders in the middle of something like that, but until someone comes up with them, people that don't want to get hurt should not take part in provocative actions like this.
Of course Palistinians shooting up busloads of tourists, throwing wheelchair bound passengers on cruise liners overboard, or blowing up Jewish places of worship in France, or playing soccer with the severed heads of Israeli prisoners are all perfectly acceptable and not worthy of note.
Just a little stroll down memory lane for people so we can see what prompts Israel in a lot of it's responses.
As you can hear in the video, that man was hit multiple times. If I recall correctly, he may have even been hit all six times.
You're drastically overestimating the incapacitating power of a handgun.
I've taken numerous handgun training classes, and I've practiced around these sorts of scenarios. I'm not trying to be insulting, but to say what you have betrays an incredible ingnorance of firearms in general, and given the level of ignorance, you really should know better than to make these sorts of comments.
Even based on things you DO know, I can't believe you'd say this. Honestly, THINK about the sitation. If you're laying on your back, being struck with multiple metal pipes, do you HONESTLY think you're going to be observing the effect of each pistol shot you fire, waiting patiently to assess the victim's reaction, and then firing additional bullets only if response was not forthcoming?
PLEASE, guys, I don't want to be a dick, but you're saying some of the most stupid, ignorant crap imaginable. I'm sorry for the adjectives, but I have to be as emphatic as possible that this is ridiculous, wrongheaded thinking. I also know that if you just stop and think about it, it's not something you can't understand. You're plenty smart enough, you just don't want to think through.
I have never actually been in a gunfight with real firearms, but I've played enough paintball in very close quarters to know that it's extremely hard to assess exactly what's going on in the heat of the moment. And that's paintball. It gets about a thousand times more confusing when your life is on the line, you've been hit with a metal pipe, you're on the deck of a ship, and real firearms are going off.
You guys are acting like this is some clinical, clean, calm situation where people are making choices under no duress, over long periods of time, and with no external factors. That could not be any LESS in sync with reality.
The fact that you're completely wrong really is a FACT. Not an opinion. It really behooves you to stop, and ask yourself why you're being so willfully disingenuous, and as a result, if you can trust any of your own judgements on this matter. You need to stop, get the emotions under control, and then rethink this whole thing from step one.
Loki, if you are expert marksman enough to pick out targets in that kind of a situation you really should be giving lessons.
When the bullets start flying in the middle of a fight like what was going on there, a huge mosh of people moving around with a lot armed and attacking, they are going to travel until they are stopped one way or another. It would be nice to have a gun with magic bullets that don't hit bystanders in the middle of something like that, but until someone comes up with them, people that don't want to get hurt should not take part in provocative actions like this.
They had those. They put them away and pulled out the real guns.
Of course Palistinians shooting up busloads of tourists, throwing wheelchair bound passengers on cruise liners overboard, or blowing up Jewish places of worship in France, or playing soccer with the severed heads of Israeli prisoners are all perfectly acceptable and not worthy of note.
You should probably stop posting until you learn proportionality or at the very least go back and read what the topic is about. I mean, lions kill zebras all the time too, and I agree, that makes this ok.
Just a little stroll down memory lane for people so we can see what prompts Israel in a lot of it's responses.
How was that a stroll down memory lane? You didn't recall any exact event, you just said "Palestinians have done bad things".
I think we all need to sit down and watch the West Wing episode "A Proportional Response", then come back and discuss. It'll be like a book club! I'll make some hor'dourves. Chicken Salad on Ritz crackers ok?
loki old fart wrote:
A 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
The injuries to Fulkan Dogan are entirely consistent with what one would expect in the event that the soldier in question were struggling for his weapon, or attempting to free a pinned comrade. The remaining wounds seem consistent with what would occur when firing into a tightly packed crowd after having been attacked, or when firing from a compromising position.
When some of the responces were not sufficiently pro-Israeli the threads were locked under grounds of them being 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'.
Right, totally, cause AIPAC even has implanted their own moderators on this particular miniatures wargaming site. How far does the Jewish banking conspiracy reach!?!ONE!
And yet, here you are, happily typing out your viewpoints, despite the Zionist oppressor. Maybe they're just too busy murdering innocents to keep up on their censoring duty? If we'd just give more foreign aid to Israel, I'm sure they could hire the necessary staff to fulfill your victimization fantasies.
Well the threads WERE closed on the grounds I mentioned . Go ahead and read for yourself if you do not beleive me. Its there to see in plain text.
This doesn't mean I beleive that Israeli propogandists are 'taking over Dakka', its just the actions of a rather biased mod. Stop putting worlds in my mouth.
Phryxis wrote:
we have numberous eye witness reports from credible persons that unarmed activists were shot.
Wrong. There are two kinds of people that saw that thing up close: Commandos and activists. Neither are 'credible.'
As the activists hasd with them a number of observers including a retired ambassador, jorunalists and ex senior military personnel i wonder who else tjhey would have to be to be credible.
If an ex-ambassador is not a credible witness, who is?
Phryxis wrote:
That said, I'm not saying that unarmed people DIDN'T get shot. I have no way of making that claim with any real support, and, unlike you, I don't like to make unsupported claims.
You are making unsupported claims right here when you dismiss witnesses as not credible. He said the victims were unarmed, why is that so hard to beleive. Why do you insist such claims are unsupported if there are multiple witnesses. Do you know that multiple eyewritness accounts are good enough evidence for a court of law in trials, so why are multiple eyewitness accounts suddenly 'unsupported' now, because they dont support what you want to believe perhaps? perhaps you should try and be objective.
Phryxis wrote:
It could be that every one that was shot was swinging a metal bar at the very moment the bullet struck them. It could be that they were lined up on the railing and shot. I don't know. But, unlike you, I know what I don't know.
Several bullets at the back of the neck looks to honest interpretation like an execution style killing. Put them down and keep them down. Double tap. at the very minimum we can tell this has little to do with self defence and much to do with temination.
Phryxis wrote:
To consider my reaction to this brutality loaded is unfair.
Dude. Imagine that you're lying on the deck of a ship being struck repeatedly with a steel pipe, and you have a pistol on your thigh. Are you seriously telling me you'd just wait for darkness to take you?
No, I cant imagine your scenario because it would be difficult to have a gun at the back of the neck of my attacker while on the floor being struck by the steel pipe. Something is obviously wrong with your image of events.
Phryxis wrote:
Stop telling me that you're not using loaded terms. It's ALL you're capable of producing. "Murder." "Brutality." "Bloodshed."
Murder: Why not use this term. after all the commandos did so in their official pres reports, as I have quoted. I have not heard a single word of critique of that. If you want to be seen as objective how about giving that a go.
Brutality: Fast roping onto a deck coming up against unprepared people at very short range, then shooting them. Thats pretty brutal. You can expect confrontation at that range, they got some, they started killing people in 'responce'.
Bloodshed: Are you really stupid enough that you can shoot Fulkan Dogan five times in the face, back of head, legs and back without drawing blood. And that one victim. How is bloodshed a loaded term.
Phryxis wrote:
First off, I never said I was impartial. In fact, I've said in the past that I'm generally pro-Israeli. I'm not saying I'm impartial. I'm saying you're so obviously incapable of impartiality, it's laughable.
The trouble is that some here consider anything but a pro-Israeli stance as rabid pro-Palestinian bias. I am not actually an arabist, and never was. I condemn what has happened on the evidence before me and by comparison to how this incident would have been treated in the media if any other nation had ordered the attacks.
Critique of Israel is difficult to achieve sometimes because no matter how one tries to stick to the issues fairly one is often open to ad hominem attacks of racist or anti semitism. there is a clear pattern of this behaviour, and it has been shown to be true evwn here on Dakka. More importantly it is a common reactio to media and poltical critique also. This is the lack of impartiality I abhor. I would not mind if people say 'I love Israel so I have difficulty accepting critique', that is a world of difference from 'I love Israel so any critique I hear will result in accusations of bigotry'. The former is human nature the second is a polticised movement to shut down opposition out of fear of labelling.
Phryxis wrote:
You're in here screeching about murder, brutality and blood, demanding that I codemn this, or admit that... You're simply not interested in logic or objectivism.
So, as I said, if that's the only way you can respond to this situation, that's your deal. But if you actually have any interest in convincing me of the validity of your viewpoint, it's going to take logic and facts, not drama and emotions.
We are not robots. I have no reasson not to be angry at the senseless killing of aid workers and activists. I need not hold back from that. There is no doubt that they are dead, no doubt who did it, and only those who participated in the attack and their most ardent supporters actually claim they were terrorists.
Just because I am emotionally involved by what has happened does not preclude me or other critics from rationality or logic. However I conversely see very little logic in the arguments you put forward. You say we know so little about what happened when we have so many eye witnesses and reports from examination of the bodies of the victims. We have seen no evidence of firearms or explosives from aboard the shuips and know that had they been carried the Israelis would have lost no time in displaying them. We kniow that the commandoes landed to close to people who were unprepared for them and thus reacted in fear and panic at short range. We can account for their actions to some degree, we cannot equally excuse the actions of trained soldiers who dropped amid them.
I can apportion blame to Israel without sacrificing logic in the process. I cannot find a logical path that leads to an opposing conclusion.
The only moot point is the question of the legality of the blockade to begin with and the timing of the operation in international waters. For that we need to listen to conflicting lawyers. This can only determine the legality of the initiation of the operation, nothing can give any moral backing to the outcome.
Ahtman wrote:I think we all need to sit down and watch the West Wing episode "A Proportional Response", then come back and discuss. It'll be like a book club! I'll make some hor'dourves. Chicken Salad on Ritz crackers ok?
I like Robert McNamara’s point in The Fog of War.
"Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve."
"I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.—Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history -- kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time -- and today -- has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?
LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
That said, there’s a big difference between planning a bombing operation and dropping some troops from helicopter onto the hull of ship – in a split second when you’re under attack from greater numbers I can understand using a lot of lethal force to retake the position. But more than anything that’s ultimately an argument against dropping a handful of troops onto a boat and hoping it doesn’t go pear shaped.
The issue of proportionality matters a lot more in attempting to justify the blockade – keeping 4 million people in a state of absolute poverty without any opportunity to sustain themselves, because 30 odd people have been killed with rockets…
If an ex-ambassador is not a credible witness, who is?
Ambassadors can't be biased, or have an agenda? That's odd, I thought it was their JOB to have an agenda.
Why do you keep saying things that are patently nonsensical?
But I'll humor you. What are the embassador's statements on the issue?
As far as who would be credible, I'd say that somebody with no emotional or politcal ties to the situation would be most credible. Somebody like a random Japanese guy from the UN.
He said the victims were unarmed, why is that so hard to beleive.
You have a hard time reading. I never said I DON'T believe the victims unarmed. I said they might have been, they might not.
We do know that at least some people on the boat were armed with metal pipes, and were using them to beat people. It seems odd to me that those people would not be shot, and others would. It's possible, but it seems odd. Why would you not shoot the people attacking you?
so why are multiple eyewitness accounts suddenly 'unsupported' now, because they dont support what you want to believe perhaps?
There are a few reasons...
One is because I'm not really clear what accounts you even think you're recounting, because you're a bit incoherant. Another is that I strongly doubt that anybody who would choose to get on that boat is an objective source. (If you can point to somebody I should trust, I will review their testimony) Also, I'm not clear what "unarmed" even means. If it means "not armed with a firearm" I believe that most (or all) of the people shot did not have firearms.
That said, we've seen pictures of a bloody, beaten commando lying on the deck. He has no pistol. If he doesn't have it, who does? Why do you not ask that question if you're so logical? Hint: You're not.
The fact is, it's quite possible that some of the activists were shot by other activists, attempting to use a stolen pistol and failing. Not that this is the most likely case, just that it's YET ANOTHER possibility that you've refused to even consider, despite obvious evidence that the activists must have captured at least one pistol.
Put them down and keep them down. Double tap.
I'm laughing at the Brit pretending to know anything about shooting. Do a lot of double tapping, do you? Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?
at the very minimum we can tell this has little to do with self defence and much to do with temination.
Good lord, you know NOTHING and yet you talk and talk like you do. You do not shoot a firearm at a person unless you intend to kill them. ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
And that said, getting shot in the back of the neck doesn't mean that somebody said "get him in the back of the neck" and went over and did it. It means bullets hit somebody in the back of the neck. Maybe it was done deliberately. Maybe it just happened that way.
But, hey, based on knowing nothing and having no command of logic "you can tell" things. Way to go, champ.
Fast roping onto a deck coming up against unprepared people at very short range, then shooting them.
You're LYING now. That's intellectually dishonest to the point of being an outright lie. I'm trying not to be a gak, but you're just so ridiculously out of line, it's literally offensive to the very concept of rational thought.
They didn't just fast rope in and start shooting people. They roped in, and were met by people ready with metal pipes, which they then used to beat them. This continued for some time, until the commandos had sufficient numbers on deck to fight back, and then shooting started. That's reality.
You're a liar.
I condemn what has happened on the evidence before me and by comparison to how this incident would have been treated in the media if any other nation had ordered the attacks.
You condemn it based on emotionalism, ignorance, and a total lack of logic.
You prove it with this sentence. You're specifically saying, the fact that Israeli or American media would misrepresent this incident effects your decision to condemn it. How does that mtter AT ALL to what actually happened? If somebody lies about something, does that change what happened? No.
But for you it does. You're specifically ADMITTING that because the media protrayal is upsetting you, it effects your perception of the situation. You're not capable of objectivity. Thanks for agreeing with me.
If an ex-ambassador is not a credible witness, who is?
Ambassadors can't be biased, or have an agenda? That's odd, I thought it was their JOB to have an agenda.
Trying to find anyone present who was completely neutral would be a problem, thast wouldnt affect credibility as witnesses. Again you couldnt find eyewitnesses for court cases otherwise, unless the onlookers were from the vulcan high command.
You attach an unrealistically high value to a lack of emotion to witness credibility, more so than a court, or reasonable journalism. It is not reasonable to expect witnesses to be completely detached
Phryxis wrote:That said, we've seen pictures of a bloody, beaten commando lying on the deck. He has no pistol. If he doesn't have it, who does? Why do you not ask that question if you're so logical? Hint: You're not.
I cannot see his anus either, but thats doesnt mean he no longer has one.
Phryxis wrote:
Put them down and keep them down. Double tap.
I'm laughing at the Brit pretending to know anything about shooting. Do a lot of double tapping, do you? Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?
Just because we have strict gun control laws doesnt proclude understanding in firearm use.
Phryxis wrote:
at the very minimum we can tell this has little to do with self defence and much to do with temination.
Good lord, you know NOTHING and yet you talk and talk like you do. You do not shoot a firearm at a person unless you intend to kill them.
Now bullets to the back of the head indicate the person was finished off. If the victim was shot in the face and back of head he was shot from two different directions or there was a crossfire.
Phryxis wrote:ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
If that were true there would be no such thing as rubber bullets. There is a difference between shooting until a target is no longer an immediate threat and termination. Now if you were to say that all shots risk killing then yes I would agree, but there is a difference between that. It is quite clear the commandoes did not shoot to protect themselves but deliberately to terminate, there is a difference.
Phryxis wrote:
And that said, getting shot in the back of the neck doesn't mean that somebody said "get him in the back of the neck" and went over and did it. It means bullets hit somebody in the back of the neck. Maybe it was done deliberately. Maybe it just happened that way.
That would be logical if he wasnt also shot in the face. Two seperate directions of fire.
But, hey, based on knowing nothing and having no command of logic "you can tell" things. Way to go, champ.
It's an MO for Israeli special forces. One of the signiture Israeli termination techniques is to continue to close with a target while shooting then once at zero range adding an extra bullet to the base of the skull. I think this training 'kicked in' for the commando involved and the extra bullet was used. Its fits the pattern perfectly.
Phryxis wrote:
Fast roping onto a deck coming up against unprepared people at very short range, then shooting them.
You're LYING now. That's intellectually dishonest to the point of being an outright lie. I'm trying not to be a gak, but you're just so ridiculously out of line, it's literally offensive to the very concept of rational thought.
They fastroped, fact, they were up against unprepared people at short range, fact, they shot them, fact.
The actual method of assault used guaranteed a conflict would ensue. Where is the lie?
Phryxis wrote:
They didn't just fast rope in and start shooting people. They roped in, and were met by people ready with metal pipes, which they then used to beat them. This continued for some time, until the commandos had sufficient numbers on deck to fight back, and then shooting started. That's reality.
You're a liar.
So the shooting was a response delayed while beatinggs 'continued for some time' was it? How do you know that? Your version doesnt fit either sides statement of events.
Phryxis wrote:
You condemn it based on emotionalism, ignorance, and a total lack of logic.
Dont troll me. I stick to the issues and post reasonable interpretations, the fact that they disagree with your interpretations is not unthinking. You are not a universal font of truth that cannot be disagreed with. Try to be a little less arrogant please.
Phryxis wrote:
You prove it with this sentence. You're specifically saying, the fact that Israeli or American media would misrepresent this incident effects your decision to condemn it.
I mentioned that the media misrepresentation and the evidence of events both together result in my condemnation. This is not an either or. I condemn based on the evidence, wihch is fair to anyone. An aid flotilla heading to releive the misery of Gazans was attacked and acticvists including some known to be unarmed and known not to be terrorists were wounded and killed. Those are fact, and this I condemn.
In addition to this due to the fact that a propoganda machine based in the Israeli and US media has been terying its best to put a very dodgy spin on events, includuing refering to the activists shot as 'muderderous mercenaries' and having no remorse for the shootings causes me and others to remain vocal on this issue.
You might have noticed there have been a lot of threads on the attacks, some people myself included are angry and critical of Israeli actions, others taken a different responce as you have.
This is logical and reasonable.
Phryxis wrote:
How does that mtter AT ALL to what actually happened? If somebody lies about something, does that change what happened? No.
Aid workers died, this is condemnable, they have been labelled as 'terrorists' by an Israeli propoganda machine, this is also condemnable. Most government would have some measure of contrition of apology whern they feth up this badly. Or at least attempt an embarassed silence. The pro-Israeli media however acts to sully the names of the victims, what is so illogical about condemning that.
Phryxis wrote:
But for you it does. You're specifically ADMITTING that because the media protrayal is upsetting you, it effects your perception of the situation. You're not capable of objectivity. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I am responding with objectivity in mind, yes I am emotionally engaged, so is just about the whole world, even you should be able to admit that, because you are emotionally engaged too. Your posts here prove that.
I am capable of objectivity and have explained my logic fully within my own paradigm wherin objectivity and meiivity are not polar opposites. However if you do not think one can be objective and emotional then I suggest you apply such thinking first to yourself and your own standards where they are most relevant. Then you will see by your own definitions that you are spouting hypocritical nonsense.
Phryxis wrote:ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
If that were true there would be no such thing as rubber bullets. There is a difference between shooting until a target is no longer an immediate threat and termination. Now if you were to say that all shots risk killing then yes I would agree, but there is a difference between that. It is quite clear the commandoes did not shoot to protect themselves but deliberately to terminate, there is a difference.
There is no difference between shooting to protect yourself and shooting to kill.
If we could restrict critiques and counters to the arguments presented rather than at the other poster that'd be swell. I appreciate it can get frustrating if not outright infuriating when someone else doesn't see or agree with your perspective but please stay polite with each other.
Our Illuminati NWO masters haven't arranged for us to lock the thread until early this evening, if we're forced to act earlier then it might destabilise our glorious revolution.
When some of the responces were not sufficiently pro-Israeli the threads were locked under grounds of them being 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'.
Right, totally, cause AIPAC even has implanted their own moderators on this particular miniatures wargaming site. How far does the Jewish banking conspiracy reach!?!ONE!
And yet, here you are, happily typing out your viewpoints, despite the Zionist oppressor. Maybe they're just too busy murdering innocents to keep up on their censoring duty? If we'd just give more foreign aid to Israel, I'm sure they could hire the necessary staff to fulfill your victimization fantasies.
(I'm baaaaaccccckkkkk)
I admit it. I'm a plant. This is explains why I was checking my bank account to see if the $1MM came in yet before resolving to not buy a Rolls Royce this year in protest of the BP spill. Ya caught me. All barbeque eating gun nut Klan hating libertarians are secretly Israeli spies.
you found me, but you'll never catch me muahahahahahaha
Phryxis wrote:ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
If that were true there would be no such thing as rubber bullets. There is a difference between shooting until a target is no longer an immediate threat and termination. Now if you were to say that all shots risk killing then yes I would agree, but there is a difference between that. It is quite clear the commandoes did not shoot to protect themselves but deliberately to terminate, there is a difference.
There is no difference between shooting to protect yourself and shooting to kill.
Actually there is. Bullet to the base of the neck of a downed opponent at close range is a signiture shot. There is even a name for this: coup de grace.
When you shoot to protect yourself you might kill, shooting to kill is something else entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Phryxis wrote:
When some of the responces were not sufficiently pro-Israeli the threads were locked under grounds of them being 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'.
Right, totally, cause AIPAC even has implanted their own moderators on this particular miniatures wargaming site. How far does the Jewish banking conspiracy reach!?!ONE!
And yet, here you are, happily typing out your viewpoints, despite the Zionist oppressor. Maybe they're just too busy murdering innocents to keep up on their censoring duty? If we'd just give more foreign aid to Israel, I'm sure they could hire the necessary staff to fulfill your victimization fantasies.
I already rebuffed this one Frazzie. Phryxis decided not to press the attack. No need to join in on this one.
Frazzled wrote:
(I'm baaaaaccccckkkkk)
What happened to the five day ban? We were had.
Frazzled wrote:
I admit it. I'm a plant.
You mean you have a vascular system but no brain stem?
Frazzled wrote:
This is explains why I was checking my bank account to see if the $1MM came in yet before resolving to not buy a Rolls Royce this year in protest of the BP spill. Ya caught me. All barbeque eating gun nut Klan hating libertarians are secretly Israeli spies.
You will not stop the evil Anglo-Palestinian plot of evil.
We will pollute them on the beaches.
Phryxis wrote:ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
If that were true there would be no such thing as rubber bullets. There is a difference between shooting until a target is no longer an immediate threat and termination. Now if you were to say that all shots risk killing then yes I would agree, but there is a difference between that. It is quite clear the commandoes did not shoot to protect themselves but deliberately to terminate, there is a difference.
There is no difference between shooting to protect yourself and shooting to kill.
Actually there is. Bullet to the base of the neck of a downed opponent at close range is a signiture shot. There is even a name for this: coup de grace.
When you shoot to protect yourself you might kill, shooting to kill is something else entirely.
If you are shooting to protect yourself you are shooting to kill. If they survive, it's a happy accident.
I missed the part where there was footage or anything showing that the commandos were deliberately aiming at downed attackers rather than, you know, the guys who were still upright.
Phryxis wrote:ANYBODY who has ANY training with firearms has had this explained to them. You're seriously ridiculous. "They weren't just shooting them, they were shooting to kill!" All shots are shots to kill. Grow up. This isn't a cop drama, it's real life.
If that were true there would be no such thing as rubber bullets. There is a difference between shooting until a target is no longer an immediate threat and termination. Now if you were to say that all shots risk killing then yes I would agree, but there is a difference between that. It is quite clear the commandoes did not shoot to protect themselves but deliberately to terminate, there is a difference.
There is no difference between shooting to protect yourself and shooting to kill.
Actually there is. Bullet to the base of the neck of a downed opponent at close range is a signiture shot. There is even a name for this: coup de grace.
When you shoot to protect yourself you might kill, shooting to kill is something else entirely.
If you are shooting to protect yourself you are shooting to kill. If they survive, it's a happy accident.
Sorry you really miss the point. A coup de grace is there to eliminate the possibility of 'happy accidents'. It's a different type of shot.
While on this point shooting to disable is a valid tactic particualry amongst policing. When facing demonstrators and given the need to open fire aiming for the legs or weapon arm is a valid tactical option. Even in life threatening circumstances. There is a shoot to disable option, police snipers are taught it. I mentioned this on aside as it normally refers to long range shooting at an isolated target and is not relevant to the incident being discused.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I missed the part where there was footage or anything showing that the commandos were deliberately aiming at downed attackers rather than, you know, the guys who were still upright.
All the shootings occured off camera, or perhaps more accurately away from surviving published footage.
The back of head shots are indicative of coup de grace killings and can evidenced by examination of the wound groupings. The shots to the chest and face corroborate the story that the victim way well have been upright and potentially threatening when shot, a seperate shot to the back of the head does not. The victim either has to be facing away from the shooter or on the ground.
And the same to you, sir. You maintain a distinction that doesn't exist in reality; when you shoot at someone, you are shooting to kill. Period.
a coup de crace is there to eliminate the possibility of 'happy accidents'.
All the shootings occured off camera, or perhaps more accurately away from surviving published footage.
The back of head shots are indicative of coup de grace killings and can evidenced by examination of the wound groupings. The shots to the chest and face corroborate the story that the victim way well have been upright and potentially threatening when shot, a seperate shot to the back of the head does not. The victim either has to be facing away from the shooter or on the ground.
I'm not seeing how it would be implausible for someone to get shot in the back of the head when bullets are being fired at a crowd.
While on this point shooting to disable is a valid tactic particualry amongst policing. When facing demonstrators and given the need to open fire aiming for the legs or weapon arm is a valid tactical option. Even in life threatening circumstances. There is a shoot to disable option, police snipers are taught it. I mentioned this on aside as it normally refers to long range shooting at an isolated target and is not relevant to the incident being discused.
This is an utter nonsense. I am sorry to be dragged into this thread but I have to dispel such misconceptions. Snipers may well be taught to aim for specific body parts; however, they are at extreme range and the target usually isn't aware of the sniper and certainly isn't attacking them. In 99.9% of combat situations, you aim for a body mass - to aim otherwise would require a bullet that was laser guided to the shoulder. It just doesn't work that way in real life. Unfortunately, Hollywood has propagated the myth of 'shoot to wound' and 'shoot to kill'. There is no such thing - it's either shoot or don't shoot especially in a situation where you are surrounded by milling bodies, chaos and confusion. Anyone who has been in a combat situation will agree.
While on this point shooting to disable is a valid tactic particualry amongst policing. When facing demonstrators and given the need to open fire aiming for the legs or weapon arm is a valid tactical option. Even in life threatening circumstances. There is a shoot to disable option, police snipers are taught it. I mentioned this on aside as it normally refers to long range shooting at an isolated target and is not relevant to the incident being discused.
This is an utter nonsense. I am sorry to be dragged into this thread but I have to dispel such misconceptions. Snipers may well be taught to aim for specific body parts; however, they are at extreme range and the target usually isn't aware of the sniper and certainly isn't attacking them.
Thankyou for supporting what I am saying. Point italicised. Yes the vast majority of the time this is not what you aim (sic) to do.
filbert wrote:
Unfortunately, Hollywood has propagated the myth of 'shoot to wound' and 'shoot to kill'. There is no such thing - it's either shoot or don't shoot especially in a situation where you are surrounded by milling bodies, chaos and confusion. Anyone who has been in a combat situation will agree.
Hollywood is not relevant, though it may well fuel public calls for changes in legislation. Nevertheless here is an example of a shoot to disable policy only of the 0.1% you mentioned: Tim Kretschmer, the Winnenden school shooting spree killer. He was cornered by German police marksmen in a car park at the end of his rampage. A police sniper shot Kretschmer in the leg while he was mobile but isolated from ther public, Kretschmer however committed suicide with as side arm before the police are able to arrest him. The police at the time were still trying to isolate, neutralise and then arrest rather than terminate the subject, had civilians been still in the line if fire it is likely the marksmen would have tried to kill him outright instead.
On this note there is currently a bill in New York to try and inforce a shoot to wound policy in New York, this is opposed quite rightly by the police. There is currently a shoot to wound policy in Nigeria, for what thats worth.
filbert wrote:
In 99.9% of combat situations, you aim for a body mass - to aim otherwise would require a bullet that was laser guided to the shoulder.
This is why you misunderstand, point italicised. It was not a combat situation, its a policing situation. The commandoes were there to enforce a blockade not to engage an enemy. A different mentality is required.
In any event we are digressing. The relevant imformation which Warboos perpectually ignores is when shooting a downed opponent with a deliberate coup de grace occurs. Coup de grace may well be an inappropriate name because it implies an acto of mercy, but its is less likelty to be misinterpreted than 'execution'.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Sorry you really miss the point
And the same to you, sir. You maintain a distinction that doesn't exist in reality; when you shoot at someone, you are shooting to kill. Period.
There is a distinction between finishing off a downed opponent and shooting an active threat. The former is to intended to guarantee death, the latter is to end conflict with the strong likelihood of death occuring in the process. Where this not the case there would be no such thing as coup de grace or for that matter WIA. It is known that that is a policy to finish off downed opponents in many engagments by the IDF, I find the bullet in the back of the head of a victim with other different wounds highly suspicious as it fits their MO.
While on this point shooting to disable is a valid tactic particualry amongst policing. When facing demonstrators and given the need to open fire aiming for the legs or weapon arm is a valid tactical option. Even in life threatening circumstances. There is a shoot to disable option, police snipers are taught it. I mentioned this on aside as it normally refers to long range shooting at an isolated target and is not relevant to the incident being discused.
This is an utter nonsense. I am sorry to be dragged into this thread but I have to dispel such misconceptions. Snipers may well be taught to aim for specific body parts; however, they are at extreme range and the target usually isn't aware of the sniper and certainly isn't attacking them.
Thankyou for supporting what I am saying. Point italicised. Yes the vast majority of the time this is not what you aim (sic) to do.
filbert wrote: Unfortunately, Hollywood has propagated the myth of 'shoot to wound' and 'shoot to kill'. There is no such thing - it's either shoot or don't shoot especially in a situation where you are surrounded by milling bodies, chaos and confusion. Anyone who has been in a combat situation will agree.
Hollywood is not relevant, though it may well fuel public calls for changes in legislation. Nevertheless here is an example of a shoot to disable policy only of the 0.1% you mentioned: Tim Kretschmer, the Winnenden school shooting spree killer. He was cornered by German police marksmen in a car park at the end of his rampage. A police sniper shot Kretschmer in the leg while he was mobile but isolated from ther public, Kretschmer however committed suicide with as side arm before the police are able to arrest him. The police at the time were still trying to isolate, neutralise and then arrest rather than terminate the subject, had civilians been still in the line if fire it is likely the marksmen would have tried to kill him outright instead. On this note there is currently a bill in New York to try and inforce a shoot to wound policy in New York, this is opposed quite rightly by the police. There is currently a shoot to wound policy in Nigeria, for what thats worth.
So why bring this up at all? You already mention that talk of police and snipers is irrelevant; are you trying to suggest that the Israeli forces should have attempted to 'shoot to disable' as you put it? If so, you are wrong, simple as that.
Edit: And the issue of Hollywood stereotype is entirely relevant. The problem is, and this includes this thread, is that there are too many armchair generals whose only basis of argument is something they have seen on TV, Movies or the media in general. Decrying Israeli (or Palestinian for that matter) attacks and tactics based on what you think is military doctrine doesn't wash.
Frazzled wrote:However, orly you have no proof that downed opponents were in fact "shot."
Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.
We also have eyewitnesses who claim to have seen victims being shot on the ground. The pattern of wounds supports this.
I cannot reemember where I read this but the MO for IDF special forces with side arms is to approach the target rapidly shooting while decreasing range then finishing of with a bullet to back to head. The odd thing was that this was an assassination rather than a policing technique. Personally I think the commando got carried away and applied his 'finishing move' to the activist during a struggle. I honestly think it was an error and assassination rather than policing training kicked in under the stress.
However this could have been avoided very easily. First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident, rhetoric from before and after strongly indicates that it was not seen as such. If your soldiers are encouraged to think 'terrorist' they are likely to apply combat rather than policing training. The soldier inteviewed gave no-one any doubt that in his eyes the opponents were active combatants not civilian miscreants, also a large measure of contempt can also be detected from the interview. Dehumanising ones opponent is a common technique, but it is supposed to be applied only to enemy armed combatants and their policitcal leaders, it is very unhealthy to apply this technique when refering to opposed civilians, so as to prevent such trajedies as we have seen.
Frazzled wrote:However, orly you have no proof that downed opponents were in fact "shot."
Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.
We also have eyewitnesses who claim to have seen victims being shot on the ground. The pattern of wounds supports this.
I cannot reemember where I red this but the MO for IDF special forces with side arms is to approach the target rapidly shooting while decreasing range then finishing of with a bullet to back to head. The odd thing was that this was an assassination rather than a policing technique. Personally I think the commando got carried away and applied his 'finishing move' to the activist during a struggle. I honestly think it was an error and assassination rather than policing training kicked in under the stress.
Hoever this could have been avoided very easily. First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident, rhetoric indicates that it was not seen as such. if your sopldiers are encouraged to think 'terrorist' they are likely to combat rather than policing training.
A lot of the time, the shot to the back of the head is delivered after the victim is already dead. It's not necessarily to 'finish them off' it's more to make doubly sure they don't pose any threat anymore. I would humbly suggest that a lot of the shots to the backs of heads are postmortem.
A lot of the time, the shot to the back of the head is delivered after the victim is already dead. It's not necessarily to 'finish them off' it's more to make doubly sure they don't pose any threat anymore. I would humbly suggest that a lot of the shots to the backs of heads are postmortem.
Again you seem to be agreeing with me phrased as disagreeing. Let me ask you this, what if the person you finish off was still alive, which I suppose is the point of the extra bullet. Let us look at this as a logic chain.
1. This is a policing incident.
2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
4. Why finish him off?
a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
b) or he is dead.
In either case the extra bullet is not acceptable outcome for the incident. In fact even if this was an actual war not a policing incident and the targets were a known enemy with guns its not even acceptible under the Hague conventions. Captured opponents and civilians are entitled to medical assistance as required from the controlling forces.
Those same eyewitnesses are the people who claim that they did nothing to provoke the Israelis to open fire with the Pepperball guns--after having grabbed the ropes and tried to shake them off, throwing an IDF member from the upper deck down 13-14 feet to the next deck, etc.
Orlanth - I am not going to get drawn into an argument over whether the Israelis saw this as a military or a policing matter, suffice it to say that as I mentioned earlier, it is all to easy to sit and pass judgement, especially when most of us have never discharged a weapon in anger. In terms of firing at someone who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a threat, then the soldier is trained to aim at the body mass. This is difficult to do at the best of times, let alone on a ship at sea, in the midst of a melee and in charged, emotional situations. It would appear, in my considered opinion, that the shots to the back of the head are largely postmortem and as a result of the soldiers reacting aggressively to make sure their targets are neutralized. Whether that is due to emotion, training or specific orders is neither here nor there.
Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
Just because we have strict gun control laws doesnt proclude understanding in firearm use.
Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?
I can repeat myself again, if it helps.
If you're going to evade this question, please just say "evade" so we can move on.
I cannot see his anus either, but thats doesnt mean he no longer has one.
Glad to see your standard of debate has descended to yet more pitiful levels.
You can blow this point off, but it doesn't help your argument any. That commando had a gun when he landed on the boat. He doesn't in the picture. Where is it?
Let's not try to cover so much ground with each post. Let's narrow it down so we don't get lost.
Let's focus on the picture of the commando on the deck. He's got no gun. Where do YOU think his gun went?
First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident
Paintball guns are not combat weapons. They're non-lethal crowd control devices used in POLICE OPERATIONS. Jesus...
Ignore this. Focus on the questions above. I just HAD to respond because some things are too stupid to go uncommented upon. But, yeah, ignore this.
Frazzled wrote:However, orly you have no proof that downed opponents were in fact "shot."
Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.
Five shots is nothing. At point blank range, as in shooting the guy hitting you with a pipe five rounds is one second of shooting. One shot is Hollywood. I don't know Israeli special forces, but the cops and rangers that taught me to shoot in Cali taught to put multiple rounds into any target you're shooting at-shoot until they go down. Five into them as they are moving and then turning is completely realistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Those same eyewitnesses are the people who claim that they did nothing to provoke the Israelis to open fire with the Pepperball guns--after having grabbed the ropes and tried to shake them off, throwing an IDF member from the upper deck down 13-14 feet to the next deck, etc.
Yep
1. This is a policing incident.
***No. It’s a military blockade to keep enemy forces from obtaining weapons to kill Israeli civilians with. vessels that don't heave to are historically blown out of the water. the israelis were stupidly trying to not antagonize the situation. Wrong move.
2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
***No. Its ethical to enforce the blockade (ask the British). Its ethical to kill your enemy. Its ethical to kill the guys trying to kill you.
3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
***No proof of that.
4. Why finish him off?
***No proof that occurred. If it were me I’d have sunk the ship. The riot is prima facae proof they have weapons hidden on board. Ships trying to run a blockade are historically sunk. Time honored British, US, German, etc etc tradition.
a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
***No you stop the immediate threat. Special forces “stopping the threat” usually means the threat is dead before there is time for medical attention. That’s strictly tertiary. Complete the mission. Protect Your Team. Protect Yourself. Give a *&*^ about the guy you just put down-way down the priority list.
Phryxis wrote:Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
Just because we have strict gun control laws doesnt proclude understanding in firearm use.
Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?
YES I HAVE!
Colt python, browning 9mm, colt 45 1911 pattern. I've also fired a SLR 7.62, thats .308 winchester to you.
I can still strip a LMG with my eyes shut British troops are trained that way We don't have to modify our main weapon to fire three round bursts, because our troops are too dumb to learn trigger control.
But then again spray and pray as allways been the american way.
WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.
filbert wrote:
You already mention that talk of police and snipers is irrelevant; are you trying to suggest that the Israeli forces should have attempted to 'shoot to disable' as you put it? If so, you are wrong, simple as that.
I was not.
Phryxis wrote:Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.
Less trolling please.
Phryxis wrote:
Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?
Yes. Not that thats relevant, or in my country even legal anymore.
You have permission to assume I havent if it makes you feel I have less right to comment. It would not be the case.
Phryxis wrote:
You can blow this point off, but it doesn't help your argument any. That commando had a gun when he landed on the boat. He doesn't in the picture. Where is it?
In the sea perhaps, behind his back, in the hands of a colleague. Plenty of options that do not indicate it was in the hands of a 'murderous mercenary'.
Phryxis wrote:
Paintball guns are not combat weapons. They're non-lethal crowd control devices used in POLICE OPERATIONS. Jesus...
Paintball guns? what are you talking about? need more crazy pills?
Frazzled wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:However, orly you have no proof that downed opponents were in fact "shot."
Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.
Five shots is nothing. At point blank range, as in shooting the guy hitting you with a pipe five rounds is one second of shooting. One shot is Hollywood. I don't know Israeli special forces, but the cops and rangers that taught me to shoot in Cali taught to put multiple rounds into any target you're shooting at-shoot until they go down. Five into them as they are moving and then turning is completely realistic.
OK first, we have have no knowledge that this guy was carrying a pipe. Second, in one salvo you are going to shoot him three times in the front turn him over and shoot him twice more? We will allow you more than one second for this if you like. I dont buy the grouping of wounds unless some of the shorts were finishing moves. Allowing for what the commandoes were facing this was unacceptable, these are activists, shot to the ground then finished off. High powered rounds might spin a body, I will give you that, but we dont know what he was shot with, a side arm by all accounts which makes it dubious that the body would have been spun enough by five shots front and back in a single short salvo.
You are still thinking combat rather than policing in either case. Please provide your evidence to indicate that Mr Dogan was an armed threat and justified shooting in this manner.
loki old fart wrote:
This is the conclusion of the autopsy conducted by the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine, which also did autopsies on the eight other Turkish citizens killed in the Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara ferry and five other smaller boats in the so-called Freedom Flotilla. Of the other eight dead, the medical examiners found that five had been shot in the back, or in the back of the head.
I have not read this but if true that cetainly raises fair suspicion is that activists were finished off corroborating eyewitness accounts.
Finishing off downed or captured opponents is MURDER. The Hague and Geneva conventions etc have provision to protect casualties in such cases.
Do you have a reference for the Hague convention article that you cite? Yes, combatants (for want of a better term) are afforded certain rights under capture but there are very few laws regarding 'how' to shoot someone deemed a threat, beyond the prohibition of certain weapons.
Edit: Also, I think this thread is counter-productive so I am not going to post in it any more. This is going to end up the same way as the other 2 or 3 threads on the subject. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with people not being able to control their emotions.
Orlanth wrote:[You are still thinking combat rather than policing in either case. Please provide your evidence to indicate that Mr Dogan was an armed threat and justified shooting in this manner.
Provide proof he wasn't. we have pics of israeli troops down, surrounded by guys with knives.
Again this is no police action. Thats nonsense, complete utter nonsense. This is a miltary blockade. they didn't heave to. By military tradition the ship should be crab condoes.
WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.
Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.
Frazzled wrote:
1. This is a policing incident.
***No. It’s a military blockade to keep enemy forces from obtaining weapons to kill Israeli civilians with. vessels that don't heave to are historically blown out of the water. the israelis were stupidly trying to not antagonize the situation. Wrong move.
So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.
Frazzled wrote:
2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
***No. Its ethical to enforce the blockade (ask the British). Its ethical to kill your enemy. Its ethical to kill the guys trying to kill you.
The British normally Blockaded by different means.
Frazzled wrote:
3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
***No proof of that.
Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.
Frazzled wrote:
4. Why finish him off?
***No proof that occurred. If it were me I’d have sunk the ship. The riot is prima facae proof they have weapons hidden on board. Ships trying to run a blockade are historically sunk. Time honored British, US, German, etc etc tradition.
If you would have sunk the ship perhaps you are twisted. I am talking about reactions for hopefully more level headed people.
There was no riot, riots are premeditated. Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
Ships are sunk in blokcades if there is no other means of stippiong them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
Assymetric submarine warfare is not a good comparitive example for modern policy and there is a world (war) of difference between a Uboat campaign/allied blockade and stopping international aid convoys.
Frazzled wrote:
a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
***No you stop the immediate threat. Special forces “stopping the threat” usually means the threat is dead before there is time for medical attention. That’s strictly tertiary. Complete the mission. Protect Your Team. Protect Yourself. Give a *&*^ about the guy you just put down-way down the priority list.
I agree. however this also means not handing out finishing shots and handling your objectives in the order you mentioned. It is not illegal to prioritise your own wounded over the enemy. It is illegal to intentionally delay or deny medical attention to a downed opponent. That's international law by the way, Frazzie opinions dont really matter on the subject.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
filbert wrote:
So why bring this up at all?
WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.
Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.
I have to repeat myself because you fail to understand. Let me point it out.
Military law 101
Shot A. Target active, shooting at target aiming to kill as a means of stopping target.
Shot B. Target inactive, shooting to guarantee a kill (normally by closing and shooting at short range).
Shot A. is different from Shot B. because point A can result in a miss, an enabled wounded opponent, a disabled wounded opponent or a dead opponent. If the target is still active you can fire again as Shot A. If the target is dead you have achieved your objective of stopping the target by killing him. If you have a disabled wounded opponent and you intended to shoot to negate an enemy your objective is accomplished, if you intended to purposefully kill the enemy you might procede to point B though this is illegal. This is why there are such things as military laws to protect wounded prisoners.
Shot A is NOT followed by Shot B if the intent is to stop the target and the target is disabled.
Thwe two types of shot are NOT legally the same. Its lawful to shoot to kill only under certain circumstances, those circumstances change if the target is disabled in the combat. So the first shots might be Shot A, a follow on shot an illegal shot B.
In law this is taken to mean that you shoot 'as if to kill', but actually in order to eliminate an opponent as an effective fighter. A 'shot A' can be intended for a clean kill quite legally, intent to kill is not illegal but only while the opponent is active. See the distinction now.
I will not go further into military uses of deliberate wounding, but on reflection there are many reasons why you might not want to actually shoot to kill your opponent. This is a known tactical ploy for various reasons, including drawing out medics or causing combat resource problems, plus a number of cases of individuals in the military who do not want to take life, but we can count the latter out from this discussion.
I hate that you quote I quote-I can never get it to work. Bear with me.
So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.
****They were running a blockade. What they ran with was irrelevant. They were trying to run. The Israelis didn’t know what they had. The Israelis offered to take them into port and they replied with Auschwitz comments. If I were navy Commander Frazzled torpedoes would have been in the water the moment Auschwitz was mentioned.
The British normally Blockaded by different means.
***Tell that to the Germans, the Japans, the French, and the US. We had our second war over that.
Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.
***Other witnesses say no. Your witnesses claimed they were peaceful. Clearly not the case. Everyone’s biased in this adventure and your witnesses have links to terrorists organizations-why are they even breathing?
If you would have sunk the ship perhaps you are twisted. I am talking about reactions for hopefully more level headed people.
***Its standard practice. That’s what a blockade is. The US was within minutes of a nuke war over a blockade. Lets get real here.
There was no riot, riots are premeditated.
***Wait, what? Really? All those soccer riots were premediated? But lets take you t your word-they were premediated. All the more reason to blow them away.
Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
***facepalm. Running a blockade to interdict weapons. Whether they had them or not is irrelevant. The blockade was put in place to keep rockets from Iran getting to Hamas to launch to kill Israelis. Its working. Its sucks to be Gazans but then again they voted in a terrorist organization.
Ships are sunk in blokcades if there is no other means of stippiong them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
***Ships are sunk if they don’t stop. If they resist they get what they get.
This is the same eyewitness evidence that stated they didn't throw a commando off the upper deck, that stated they didn't seize that commando's gun and start brandishing it around, that stated they didn't try to shake the commandos off the ropes, right?
Yeah, that's some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal reliable evidence there.
So far theres no proof that there was only one shooter.
Its possible that those shot in the back of the head were victims of 'freindly' fire.
It was also on a dark ship, amidst alot of chaos and a messy melee. I the dark you cant tell if people are facing towards or away- its likely they jsut knew they were getting hit and fired at silhouettes.
You could have put the best crime scene people on the planet on that boat 5 minutes after this happened and they probly could not sort it out.
WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.
Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.
Not really, there's a fairly significant difference between two in the chest and one in the head and one in the chest. Functionally one protects themselves with a firearm by inflicting considerable bodily harm on others by shooting at them, but proportionality is paramount in differentiating the use of firearms in a crowd control effort and their use in military offensives wherein the objective is to kill people. Soldiers aren't often trained in the differentiation though, thats more of a realm of police training and soldiers are typically trained to react quite aggressively in adverse situations.
Frazzled wrote:I hate that you quote I quote-I can never get it to work. Bear with me.
ok
Frazzled wrote:
So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.
****They were running a blockade. What they ran with was irrelevant. They were trying to run. The Israelis didn’t know what they had. The Israelis offered to take them into port and they replied with Auschwitz comments. If I were navy Commander Frazzled torpedoes would have been in the water the moment Auschwitz was mentioned.
So the answer is to board in a controled manner. We discussed this on another thread. even most Israeli apologists admit the operation was fethed up. Also the subsequent boarding of the Rachel Corrie tok place without a hitch. there were lessons on both sides. but the end result is tyat there are ways of handleing this sort of operation.
Frazzled wrote:
The British normally Blockaded by different means.
***Tell that to the Germans, the Japans, the French, and the US. We had our second war over that.
I think we can ignore the morality of any blockade from the age of sail or in fact up to 20th century. Things were different then. It was still quite normal to think differently then, we have all moved on.
Frazzled wrote:
Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.
***Other witnesses say no. Your witnesses claimed they were peaceful. Clearly not the case. Everyone’s biased in this adventure and your witnesses have links to terrorists organizations-why are they even breathing?
They arent 'my' witnesses, I am not an Arabist but a humanitarian.
Yes everyone has a bias.
the witnesses invloved many people from many nations, some arabists others just humanitarians. The link to terrorism you talk about involved the fact that some terrorists supported the particular aid agency ten years previously. Its quite reasonable to suggest that the aid agency did not know who they were being supported by, then let alone now.
If you has a rattle tin for a charity and a man who happeneed to be a terrorist placed a dime in your tin and walked away should you be shot for your terror connection?
Sorry thats too tenuous a connection to be relevant.
Frazzled wrote:
***Its standard practice. That’s what a blockade is. The US was within minutes of a nuke war over a blockade. Lets get real here.
Yers in getting real this was about sending nukes to Cuba, a genuine flashpoint. Big difference. I suppose the A-Team might be able to put together weapons from the supplies shipped: chicken powered, spice tipped pencil launching, wheelchairs sound dangerous. That ought to have the Israelis trembling with fear.
Frazzled wrote:
There was no riot, riots are premeditated.
***Wait, what? Really? All those soccer riots were premediated? But lets take you t your word-they were premediated. All the more reason to blow them away.
No thats why in a football riot you change the persons who hit people with assault and theose who organised the riot with offences related to rioting. Riot is an odd word, much misused, here in the UK you have to be read the Riot Act, which is very rarely done. Legally if the Riot Act is read out and rioters do not disperse the police can shoot into the crowd. Note this legislation while not used for centuries at a time has deliberately never been repealed.
What we usually call rioting is rioting by the press standard of the word.
In any case you charge the ringleaders with 'rioting' and the crowd with whatever they actually did. Football 'firms' (gangs attached to team fans) are high priority targets for police intelligence. Yes what they do is premeditated, even if the crowd is not.
Frazzled wrote:
Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
***facepalm. Running a blockade to interdict weapons. Whether they had them or not is irrelevant. The blockade was put in place to keep rockets from Iran getting to Hamas to launch to kill Israelis. Its working. Its sucks to be Gazans but then again they voted in a terrorist organization.
If they voted someone else there would still be firing rockets. If they stopped firing rockets they would still be under occupation and oppression, and enough are so angry its unlikely they will be able to stop. Too many relatives dead you see. That's why it sucks to be Gazan.
Frazzled wrote:
Ships are sunk in blokades if there is no other means of stopping them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
***Ships are sunk if they don’t stop. If they resist they get what they get.
Only in an active war. Israel is not at war with Turkey.
Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women, said the Israelis used rubber bullets, sound bombs and tasers against them.
"Two women were hooded, they had their eyes taped," she said, describing how the yacht was quickly overwhelmed. "We stood and tried to obstruct the armed, masked men and maintained no other defence and still they used violence."
Harrison, 32, from Islington, north London, also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.
"I have seen some selective footage that the Israelis have chosen to put out suggesting that we responded with violence," she said. "You must remember that these are unarmed civilians on their own boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. People picked up what they could to defend themselves against armed, masked commandos who were shooting."
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.
So what?
Which part didn't you understand?
also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.
So what?
Which part didn't you understand?
also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.
So what?
Which part didn't you understand?
also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.
What were they firing at?
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth, get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.
You've, I assumed, watched the video at least once, right?
Notice the "menacing rifles" carried by the Israelis. They have a hopper on the top.
They're paintball guns loaded with a crowd control ammo called "Pepperball".
We can assume this is not what was used to shoot the activists who died. The soldiers drew their pistols and opened fire with them at short range.
I really do not beleive the activists was paintballed to death.
I find the other equipment they were carrying as not really relevant, they could have been carrying inflatable sheep. It doesnt matter, that matters is that the drop was mishandled, commandoes dropped too close to panicy frightened and angry people without warning and as a result of the scuffle that ensued nine activists were killed by gunshot wounds and several others wounded.
What else is relevant is that some of the sctivists who suffered fatal injuries showed wounds that indicated that they were finished off.
Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.
So what?
Which part didn't you understand?
also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.
What were they firing at?
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Good point And the activists not knowing the difference, may have responded by grabbing anything to defend themselves.
loki old fart wrote:Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women
Wait, we finally have a point to this thread. How do you get this kind of gig? Its too late for my but my boy knows how to sail.
I don't think that you want to have your spring break end by being apprehended by israeli commandos.
Thats why you volunteer to man the helm and change course for the Bahamas. Women can't tell direction anyway, they'd never know until they got there, and by then the music is playing and rum being poured.
After the first victim fell the white flag was raised, he said, but Israeli forces continued firing. "I think the Israeli soldiers were shooting to kill because most of the people who died were shot in the top part of their bodies," he said. He believed that later victims were injured in their legs after a "tactical move" by the commandos to wound rather then kill.
"I have seen some selective footage that the Israelis have chosen to put out suggesting that we responded with violence," she said. "You must remember that these are unarmed civilians on their own boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. People picked up what they could to defend themselves against armed, masked commandos who were shooting."
The nine victims
Cengiz Alquyz, 42
Four gunshot wounds: back of head, right side of face, back, left leg
Ibrahim Bilgen, 60
Four gunshot wounds: right chest, back, right hip, right temple
Cegdet Kiliclar, 38
One gunshot wound: middle of forehead
Furkan Dogan, 19
Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle
Sahri Yaldiz
Four gunshot wounds: left chest, left leg, right leg twice
Aliheyder Bengi, 39
Six gunshot wounds: left chest, belly, right arm, right leg, left hand twice
Cetin Topcuoglu, 54
Three gunshot wounds: back of head, left side, right belly
Frazzled wrote:
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Look, maybe, sound, sorry no. I do suppose that a paintball could be mistaken for as carbine with a silencer.
Have you ever shot either Orlanth?
I've shot paintball guns and real guns. I didn't find that they sounded particularly similar. Actual firearms are significantly louder with a much different report (explosive propellant just sounds plainly different than compressed co2).
Frazzled wrote:
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Look, maybe, sound, sorry no. I do suppose that a paintball could be mistaken for as carbine with a silencer.
Have you ever shot either Orlanth?
I've shot paintball guns and real guns. I didn't find that they sounded particularly similar. Actual firearms are significantly louder with a much different report (explosive propellant just sounds plainly different than compressed co2).
Generally they are louder (I'd note my .22 rifles aren't). But if you've not heard them before how would you tell the difference?
Frazzled wrote:
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Look, maybe, sound, sorry no. I do suppose that a paintball could be mistaken for as carbine with a silencer.
Have you ever shot either Orlanth?
Either not both, but an unsilenced long arm is a very distinctive sound. anywasy if the cause of the resistance by passengers was shooting paintballs from helicopters then it doesnt help your case. Wityh the sound of the helicopters lighta and everything going on at once....
The commandoes knew what they were supposed to be doing, by definition the crew wound not. The attack would come at an odd hour after being surrounded by boats for many hours, the activists were angry scared, panicy and likely tired, if the operation was started by shots from helicopters I could ee that causing a real panic. I can also more excuse activists who thought they were going to be shot indiscriminantly and decided instinctively to fight back. It might be some time before anyone realised the initial volley were paintballs.
They are sounding less and less like terrorists and more and more like mishandled civilian activists. So uif they were opened fire upon fromt he helicopter the guys on the deck would think, OMG we are being shot at. Then an israeli fast ro0pes in front of you, its natrual to beleive he will open up indistriminently too. Pushing him away to land 14ft onto the deck below is now sounding very reasonable. Under the circumstances. Then what happens is the commandeos open up and shrt shootinfg with real guns because you have done that.
Feth up.
Thanks to the quote from loki we can see the pattern of wounds further, too many are from multiple sides and four look to include 'finishing shots' to the neck or temple at odds to where else the activist was hit.
And Shuma is right- even pepperball launchers being ramped up in pressure compared to paintball guns are no where near as loud as a regular fire arm. Trust me, to get qualified with one I had to be shot with it.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.
Frazzled wrote:Helps my case just fine. You flash a pipe. I empty a clip in your face and the guys in the helicopter open up too.
Thats a war crime frazzled (though that would require that turkey accept the declaration of war). On the high seas it would just be paramount to murder. You need more concrete circumstances for 'self defense' than 'they flashed a pipe'.
loki old fart wrote:After the first victim fell the white flag was raised, he said, but Israeli forces continued firing. "I think the Israeli soldiers were shooting to kill because most of the people who died were shot in the top part of their bodies," he said. He believed that later victims were injured in their legs after a "tactical move" by the commandos to wound rather then kill.
"I have seen some selective footage that the Israelis have chosen to put out suggesting that we responded with violence," she said. "You must remember that these are unarmed civilians on their own boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. People picked up what they could to defend themselves against armed, masked commandos who were shooting."
Well if he said and she said that must make it the truth. I mean, they said it after all, and I can't think of any examples of a witness being wrong in their recollections of traumatic events. It's not as if a Palestinian or Israeli supporters would lie, or touch up the truth a bit either.
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth, get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.
You've, I assumed, watched the video at least once, right?
Notice the "menacing rifles" carried by the Israelis. They have a hopper on the top.
They're paintball guns loaded with a crowd control ammo called "Pepperball".
We can assume this is not what was used to shoot the activists who died. The soldiers drew their pistols and opened fire with them at short range.
I really do not believe the activists was paintballed to death.
Gee, no surprise there. However, "Pepperball" is a nonlethal ammunition that is used for crowd control. It doesn't work, however, if one covers their mouth and nose with a wet cloth. Tasers don't work if someone's wearing thick enough clothes, simply because there's no contact from the metal probes into the nerve system. Tear gas can have issues working on subjects for the same reasons that Pepperball wouldn't work.
I find the other equipment they were carrying as not really relevant, they could have been carrying inflatable sheep. It doesn't matter, that matters is that the drop was mishandled, commandoes dropped too close to panicy frightened and angry people without warning and as a result of the scuffle that ensued nine activists were killed by gunshot wounds and several others wounded.
Panicy and frightened don't sound like anything relevant, considering that these people were grabbing the rope as the first commando came down and shake him off of it.
That same guy had his pistol taken when he was on the ground after being clubbed by people waiting at the bottom of the rope with piping. The protesters even admitted as much that they got some of the pistols off the Israelis and started brandishing them around.
You do not feth around with non-lethal ammunition when someone starts waving a gun around.
What else is relevant is that some of the activists who suffered fatal injuries showed wounds that indicated that they were finished off.
And the USMC's sniper corps was investigated early on in their deployment in Iraq due to the fact that an extremely high number of headshots were being confirmed.
What's your point?
Funny things happen with firearms when you've got a trained shooter using them. People actually go down.
Frazzled wrote:Helps my case just fine. You flash a pipe. I empty a clip in your face and the guys in the helicopter open up too.
Thats a war crime frazzled (though that would require that turkey accept the declaration of war). On the high seas it would just be paramount to murder. You need more concrete circumstances for 'self defense' than 'they flashed a pipe'.
1. bs. Thats lethal force responding to lethal force. get your definitions straight.
2. Please show me what war crime? Where?
Frazzled wrote:Helps my case just fine. You flash a pipe. I empty a clip in your face and the guys in the helicopter open up too.
Not really
After the first victim fell the white flag was raised, he said, but Israeli forces continued firing
their veracity is less than nothing.
Neither side has a particular history with veracity in situations similar to this, and this he said she said debate with no impartial judge is incredibly circular.
Neither side has a particular history with veracity in situations similar to this, and this he said she said debate with no impartial judge is incredibly circular.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.
Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?
Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.
The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?
Frazzled wrote:Helps my case just fine. You flash a pipe. I empty a clip in your face and the guys in the helicopter open up too.
Thats a war crime frazzled (though that would require that turkey accept the declaration of war). On the high seas it would just be paramount to murder. You need more concrete circumstances for 'self defense' than 'they flashed a pipe'.
1. bs. Thats lethal force responding to lethal force. get your definitions straight.
2. Please show me what war crime? Where?
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset who was aboard the Mavi Marmara, is now under armed protection after nearly 500 people signed up to a Facebook page calling for her execution.
"Israel wanted many deaths to terrorise us and to send a message that no future aid convoys should try to break the siege of Gaza," she told journalists this week.
Zuabi said that naval boats surrounded the Mavi Marmara and fired on it before soldiers abseiled aboard from a helicopter. She went below to the ship's hold and said that, within minutes, two dead passengers were brought inside, followed by two more who had been seriously wounded.
soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after.
Zuabi – known in Israel as an articulate Hebrew speaker – said that soldiers specifically asked her to translatetheir instructions. At first, she refused. "I shouted back, 'Why didn't you ask for my help before you murdered these people?'"
Indeed. This includes cracks about crazy pills and, charmingly, accusation of speaking out of ones ass. ESpeciallyf rom those who also are no more qualified to offer useful information on the topic.
Besides, Frazz has already horded a good 89% of the worlds crazy pills, "just because". We tried to liberate them but the hounds were set loose and the rest, alas, is yet another bloody tragedy upon the worlds' face.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Less trolling please.
Indeed. This includes cracks about crazy pills and, charmingly, accusation of speaking out of ones ass. ESpeciallyf rom those who also are no more qualified to offer useful information on the topic.
Besides, Frazz and TBONE the Ten Lb Terror!!! have already horded a good 89% of the worlds crazy pills, "just because". We tried to liberate them but the hounds were set loose and the rest, alas, is yet another bloody tragedy upon the worlds' face.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.
Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?
Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.
The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?
I think you need to reread my post and try not to put words in my mouth. Try taking my sentences for how they are actually stated. I stated that panic psychologically can lead to aggressive mob mentality and violence in enclosed spaces. This is the truth. It has been proven time and time again in both studies and in real world observations. Secondly I said that they were willing to have a fight but that they were ill prepared for one. You don't defend a boat with pipes. Even if you manage by some miracle to bludgeon the raiding military force the helicopter still has a gun and the boats the helicopter came from probably has even bigger guns. It's foolish and it's exceedingly unlikely they had planned to attempt an armed attack on israel under the guise of an aid ship by using metal pipes.
As an aside they probably pulled the pipes from the hold where they were transporting construction materials as aid.
I never said anything about it being a bloodthirsty raid, and I never spoke of the other boats. Also the IDF has yet to be confirmed as being real and it's 'reveal' is pretty suspicious as is.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Flashing pipe....in some neighborhoods that can get you a date with the right guys.....
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
loki old fart wrote:a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset who was aboard the Mavi Marmara, is now under armed protection after nearly 500 people signed up to a Facebook page calling for her execution.
500 People on Facebook? OMG ARE YOU SERIOUS? That is almost a third of a mid-west Jr High Cheerleaders friend list.
This article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If she was a member why did they bring someone that hates them so much? Why would they tell her that they were just there to terrorize and kill people? What were the instructions they asked her to shout? If it was to tell them to put the pipes and knifes down or we'll shoot it seems a little silly to respond in such a way. This article is about as trustworthy as Shuma after a few Appletini's.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.
Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?
Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.
The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?
I think you need to reread my post and try not to put words in my mouth. Try taking my sentences for how they are actually stated. I stated that panic psychologically can lead to aggressive mob mentality and violence in enclosed spaces. This is the truth. It has been proven time and time again in both studies and in real world observations. Secondly I said that they were willing to have a fight but that they were ill prepared for one. You don't defend a boat with pipes. Even if you manage by some miracle to bludgeon the raiding military force the helicopter still has a gun and the boats the helicopter came from probably has even bigger guns. It's foolish and it's exceedingly unlikely they had planned to attempt an armed attack on israel under the guise of an aid ship by using metal pipes. Also they probably pulled the pipes from the hold where they were transporting construction materials as aid.
I never said anything about it being a bloodthirsty raid, and I never spoke of the other boats. Also the IDF has yet to be confirmed as being real and it's 'reveal' is pretty suspicious as is.
Dancing with semantics again- gotcha. And there are other people posting in this thread- other boats were there and have been mentioned several times.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.
Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?
Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.
The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?
I think you need to reread my post and try not to put words in my mouth. Try taking my sentences for how they are actually stated. I stated that panic psychologically can lead to aggressive mob mentality and violence in enclosed spaces. This is the truth. It has been proven time and time again in both studies and in real world observations. Secondly I said that they were willing to have a fight but that they were ill prepared for one. You don't defend a boat with pipes. Even if you manage by some miracle to bludgeon the raiding military force the helicopter still has a gun and the boats the helicopter came from probably has even bigger guns. It's foolish and it's exceedingly unlikely they had planned to attempt an armed attack on israel under the guise of an aid ship by using metal pipes. Also they probably pulled the pipes from the hold where they were transporting construction materials as aid.
I never said anything about it being a bloodthirsty raid, and I never spoke of the other boats. Also the IDF has yet to be confirmed as being real and it's 'reveal' is pretty suspicious as is.
Dancing with semantics again- gotcha. And there are other people posting in this thread- other boats were there and have been mentioned several times.
I'm not dancing with semantics and it's tiring to hear you use that in defense of your trollish posting behavior in regards to my sentiments every time you manage to intentionally misquote me. You seem capable of interacting with others normally, why is that so difficult for you here? I don't particularly care about the other boats, I wasn't speaking on the other ones. Their existence is irrelevant to what I posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mistress of minis wrote:Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?
On open waters the national law of the registered nationalities of the boats and passengers are paramount so long as their actions don't violate international law. Israel had a thin and fairly conflicting blockade law set that it is using to justify it's actions and the aid workers are using the gray legal status of Israels blockade and pure righteousness to justify their own actions. Technically both sides are breaking national and international laws, but what actually occurred is still gray enough for conflicting levels of legality to be argued. Also people don't often understand international maritime law as a rule of thumb.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
There fixed it
Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
He heard your boat was the one going to Trinidad with the ladies?
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
There fixed it
Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.
You = troll = fail
stick to 40k you might know something about that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
He heard your boat was the one going to Trinidad with the ladies?
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
There fixed it
Some call it fastroping, others call it falling out of a helicopter after getting a hold of Shuma's appletinis...
Kanluwen wrote:
Panicy and frightened don't sound like anything relevant, considering that these people were grabbing the rope as the first commando came down and shake him off of it.
We are seeing a pattern of mitigating circumstances. If it is true that the activists were already 'under fire' from a helicopter. Civilians in the dark being shot at, they can be forgiven for not knowing or understanding what they were shot at with. Its a quite understandable that if the guys in the hlicopters are shooting activists 'at random' the commandoes might also do the same if they reach the deck. So trying to shake them off, sounds reasonable.
Kanluwen wrote:
That same guy had his pistol taken when he was on the ground after being clubbed by people waiting at the bottom of the rope with piping. The protesters even admitted as much that they got some of the pistols off the Israelis and started brandishing them around.
Yes this now corroborates with that the commando who killed six activists says. He did quite a bit before opening fire and slaughtering those people. Let us see what he claimed to do:
He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.
The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three.
Even if we accept his version of events as true, I am highly sceptical due to his claims later in the article about what the activists were supposedly equiped with, he still did well to establish two perimeters and secure wounded before drawing his own weapon, while the opponents right in front of him were appearently already armed and shooting. This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.
Kanluwen wrote:
You do not feth around with non-lethal ammunition when someone starts waving a gun around.
I am reading this as 'holy feth I managed to get the gun from of those guys who are shooting at us' paniced civvies might not distinguish between soldiers shooting from helicopters and those not shooting on the deck. The number of wounds taken by the commandoes sounds consistent without a paniced reflex by people who thought they were already under fire had noone to run and nowhere to hide. The two wounds suffered by the commandoes from captured guns and whatever else at hand may well have occured as the activists tried to take away the guns.
Analysing the commandoes own testimony this looks quite unlike a Heroic commando raid. Its a slaughter of civilians on a crowded ship, like the eye witness reports claim it is. The initial paintball attack from the helicopters now helps piece this together and explains the level of panic caused and why the activitists reacted with the commandoes as they did.
Kanluwen wrote:
And the USMC's sniper corps was investigated early on in their deployment in Iraq due to the fact that an extremely high number of headshots were being confirmed.
What's your point?
Hopefully we are talking about genuinely intentionally armed insurgents in Iraq, not paniced civilians. Wa are also talking about sniper single shot kills not finishing shots.
Kanluwen wrote:
Funny things happen with firearms when you've got a trained shooter using them. People actually go down.
Also as indicated above it is very likely that these wounds were seperate finishing shots and thus murders. They corroborate eye witness accounts that claim the commandoes shot activists who were already down. Big difference.
Explaining fire discipline to yanks is even harder than I thought.
He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.
He had a Glock. For shame!!! You can't be wicked uber cool with a mere Glock. Sure it has 19 rounds in a clip, and is nearly indestructible, but at least they could be armed with Springfield XDMs or something. Come on man, thats what over inflated budgets are for-cool toys!!!
Kanluwen wrote:If the protesters were under fire from the helicopter, they would have been down.
Period.
Again your lack of comprehension shows through. Try reading the thread. The shooters on the helicopters apparently didnt have/use real guns.
Civilans under fire from paintball guns would not go down, some would be discommoded I suppose in order to provide minimal force fire support at the point of entry. Nice in theory but a fethed up idea. The actual effect would have been that others thought that everyone was under random shooting attack. Panic, in the dark, helicopter loud overhead, searchlights, fear, confusion, crowded decks and people beng 'hit'means: We are being shot at. We are all going to die, we cannot hide, we cannot flee. A fight reaction thus takes place and the civilians human nature kicks in and they lash out at the commandoes landing amongst them.
Ther convoy was declared to be and intended to be peaceful, they were not properly armed and certainly not armed enough to resist a well armed force like the Israelis. Ther limited footage we do see shows that the majority of the pasengers, ie.e those outside the direct assault were trying to remain calm and not do anything provocative. It makes more sense now, more reasonable than to think that all the crazy fanatics just happened to be near where the commandoes landed, and far more reaonable than to assume they were 'all' violent fanatics.
Peerhaps the sad truth was that none of them were, they got paintballed cried out in pain and the panic started, commandoes dropped into ther panic and the full trajedy then unfolded. No wonder the Israelis dont want to let that out. Better to claim in the media thart they were all murderous terrorists hell bent on shipping evil humanitarian supplies of evil to the people of Gaza.
Frazzled wrote:This is the really sad part......He had a Glock. For shame!!!
Frazzie, you are being a dick.
Aid workers gunned down by an opressive regime for wanting to bring home conforts to an opressed people. Thats the sad part.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
There fixed it
Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.
You = troll = fail
stick to 40k you might know something about that
How is saying that fast roping on to a boat would be an interesting and fun thing to do trolling? Never been rappelling or mountain climbing? If someone said that base-jumping looked like fun would you call that trolling? Now getting into a melee firefight with a crew would not be something to consider fun, but then the question wasn't about that. Do you...do you know what a troll is or just using the word because you've seen others use it because it really doesn't make a lot of sense here.
Frazzled wrote:This is the really sad part......He had a Glock. For shame!!!
Frazzie, you are being a dick.
Aid workers gunned down by an opressive regime for wanting to bring home conforts to an opressed people. Thats the sad part.
Thats not nurturing Orly.
You see pooor innocent aid workers guned down by oppressive regime. I see terrorists and their fellow travellers trying to breach a blockade so follow on ships could carry rockets from Iran to kill Israeli women and children. I am sure the truth is what lies in between.
But back to the Glock. All cool special forces guys use Sig Sauers. They are the Mercedes of pistols and weapon of choice for special forces/tools of oppressive regimes everywhere. Even the Texas Rangers use Sigs. Come on guys, don't be the laughing stock of your special forces bros'. be a man and shell out the cash.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.
ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.
Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?
Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.
Yeah, but why is a cop doing it?
Because the Army guy is the one in the helicopter with the sniper rifle zeroed to your shnoz?
Again if you believe waiving a pipe is not lethal force try it with a cop. They are trained on what lethal force is and, unlike your average spetznatz, usually has a tazer or such vs. a sharpened shovel. Report back on what occurs.
or, if you like living, go for the boat with female crew and mysteriously busted compass option. I think this is the better option myself.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not dancing with semantics and it's tiring to hear you use that in defense of your trollish posting behavior in regards to my sentiments every time you manage to intentionally misquote me. You seem capable of interacting with others normally, why is that so difficult for you here? I don't particularly care about the other boats, I wasn't speaking on the other ones. Their existence is irrelevant to what I posted.
Misquoting you? Not at all- I quoted what you said verbatim. If you dont like how your statements are interpreted, perhaps be more precise in thier wording. You also seem ot think my entire post was about you- which is pure hubris as you arent the only one posting in this thread. You may not care about the other boats, because the involvement partially invalidates some of the points you were trying to make. And you seem to think anyone that cant find the substance in your claims to be tiresome, and yet you dont seem to realize its your approach that determines how people respond to you.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mistress of minis wrote:Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?
On open waters the national law of the registered nationalities of the boats and passengers are paramount so long as their actions don't violate international law. Israel had a thin and fairly conflicting blockade law set that it is using to justify it's actions and the aid workers are using the gray legal status of Israels blockade and pure righteousness to justify their own actions. Technically both sides are breaking national and international laws, but what actually occurred is still gray enough for conflicting levels of legality to be argued. Also people don't often understand international maritime law as a rule of thumb.
And we have a case where the Turkish boats are saying they werent violating those laws- and the Israelis saying they were going to- add into the fact these protestors had announced they were going to run the blockade. That declaration is whats going to bite them- since it shows they had deliberate intent to breach the blockade. If an Israeli Naval group is shadowing your little convoy and warning you to change course, and you're doing the 'Screw you! we're gonna break your blockade but we're still in international waters! neeener nneener nneeeenner " They were warned, had alternatives open to them, chose not to take them- and continued on a course to violate the blockade. Whether the blockade is legal or moral is a whole other topic, but the people on those boats knowingly put themselves in harms way, and are now crying foul. It would be like if I went down to Nogales with a bullhorn and started yelling 'Kick out the mexicans!' yes, its legal, but wouldnt be particularly smart.
Misquoting you? Not at all- I quoted what you said verbatim. If you dont like how your statements are interpreted, perhaps be more precise in thier wording. You also seem ot think my entire post was about you- which is pure hubris as you arent the only one posting in this thread. You may not care about the other boats, because the involvement partially invalidates some of the points you were trying to make. And you seem to think anyone that cant find the substance in your claims to be tiresome, and yet you dont seem to realize its your approach that determines how people respond to you.
Goody goody gumdrops. I found your claim tiresome because you apparently lack the wherewithal to understand that my post was a simple comment to the psychological conditions that can be present in circumstances like these. You brought the 'semantic' debate into this. I'm holding to the belief that you simply misread my posts because of the little voice in your head that you've assigned to my posting.
And we have a case where the Turkish boats are saying they werent violating those laws- and the Israelis saying they were going to- add into the fact these protestors had announced they were going to run the blockade. That declaration is whats going to bite them- since it shows they had deliberate intent to breach the blockade. If an Israeli Naval group is shadowing your little convoy and warning you to change course, and you're doing the 'Screw you! we're gonna break your blockade but we're still in international waters! neeener nneener nneeeenner " They were warned, had alternatives open to them, chose not to take them- and continued on a course to violate the blockade. Whether the blockade is legal or moral is a whole other topic, but the people on those boats knowingly put themselves in harms way, and are now crying foul. It would be like if I went down to Nogales with a bullhorn and started yelling 'Kick out the mexicans!' yes, its legal, but wouldnt be particularly smart.
Is the intention of running an illegal blockade an illegal act? Firstly, beyond the precrime angle is it illegal to violate a blockade that is not internationally recognized to bring aid to a region that is not owned by the nation with the blockade? There is a sizeable gray area here and by quite a few maritime laws what the israelis did was an act of piracy, war, or both. It's an easy argument to state that the aid runners were putting themselves in harms way, but thats a question of degrees not legality and what many people are asserting is that they were putting themselves in harms way in a legal fashion and that it was Israels actions that were unlawfully putting others in harms way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:This is now reminding me of the Pope thread.
In the sea perhaps, behind his back, in the hands of a colleague. Plenty of options that do not indicate it was in the hands of a 'murderous mercenary'.
I knew this would work. All it takes to teach you about multiple possibilities is to give you a reason to find some in defense of your own viewpoint.
All I've been trying to get across to you is that calling the commandos "murderers" is wrong, given all the plausible scenarios in which they would not be.
Now you see how that logic works. Because there are plausible scenarios where the activists didn't have a pistol, you don't wish to presume they had the pistol.
Do you not see how hypocritical you're being? You don't like the activists being called "terrorists." I don't either, I think it's wrong. But your response is to be wrong in the other direction, and call the commandos "murderers." There's no proof of that, either.
If you don't like the way Israeli media is spinning this, why are you doing the same thing?
And, let's be serious. Where do you think it's MOST LIKELY that pistol is? Not where it COULD be. Where it MOST LIKELY ended up after the commando lost it.
Paintball guns? what are you talking about? need more crazy pills?
The Israeli commandos were armed with paintguns firing pepperballs. Are you seriously not aware of that? You're passing yourself off as a forensic expert on this skirmish, and you didn't even know this?
Seriously, you're just being disrespectful to everyone in this thread. We don't deserve to have you piss up our leg and tell us it's rain.
Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women, said the Israelis used rubber bullets, sound bombs and tasers against them.
If I'm not mistaken, nobody was killed on that yacht, and it was overtaken AFTER the larger ship where the melee ensued.
Seems entirely reasonable. They went in soft on the big ship, and there was a major problem. They went in hard on the other ships to assure there was no repeat, and there wasn't.
It's a shame those people got roughed up like that, but the conditions demanded it.
What else is relevant is that some of the sctivists who suffered fatal injuries showed wounds that indicated that they were finished off.
You can repeat this all you want, but you need to understand that nobody besides you considers it a fact.
It's my understanding that this kid was shot once in the back of the head. One shot does not an execution make. Were there powder burns? The forensic reports give a distance. I'd like to know how they established that.
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Well, they don't at all, but to the people on the boat, they may have. If they had a real carbine to compare to, they'd know the difference, but they didn't. However most people don't realize just how loud a real gun is, so they might think a paintgun was loud enough, without a comparison point.
Honestly, here's what I think happened:
- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got together some metal pipes to fight back with.
- The commandos started coming in, and the activists went to confront them, not really realizing how much of an upper hand they had. When the commandos started falling down the activists got excited. "We can really win this!" They started wailing on them with pipes.
- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons.
- Total chaos.
- Activists realize that, no, they can't actually win and give up.
I've seen a lot of instances where people want to get up in a riot cop's face and yell and shove. I think that was the goal of these activists. When the riot cop falls over, and starts getting beat on, I think people just join in. I don't think they had any real plan.
I can't think of any examples of a witness being wrong in their recollections of traumatic events.
Exactly. One thing they teach in handgun training classes is to always yell "DROP YOUR WEAPON" at the person you're engaged with. This has two main benefits:
1) They may actually do it. And they may drop a weapon you didn't see in the first place.
But the one relevant here:
2) Witnesses who hear "DROP YOUR WEAPON" are more likely to actually remember the person as having a weapon, and say so in court. Even if they don't actually see a weapon, they may remember it that way, because of your yelling. The mind is very impressionable under duress.
This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.
Yes, and then NO.
I agree, these are just civillians, and they had no organization or plan. The story totally supports that, as the Israelis had time to "circle the wagons."
However, the second bit here is pure fantasy. They were not in a blind panic. People in a blind panic don't attack. They might fight if cornered, but generally they run away. I think these activists, while disorganized, were emboldened by their earlier success, and thought they were going to have more. When they started getting shot, they realized that wasn't the case, and gave up.
Orlanth, look, this has to stop. I admit, I've been insulting to you in this thread. I apologize for the tone. But the fact is, you're being EXTREMELY intellectually dishonest. You're repeatedly saying things that you HAVE to know aren't true or even logical. Show a little respect to the rest of us, and stop trying to steamroll us with wild speculation and baseless assertions. Be objective. Be critical of what you're saying. Don't say something unless it's really, truly valid. Don't just say what MIGHT be true, and suits you. Be critical of yourself, instead of everyone else.
In the sea perhaps, behind his back, in the hands of a colleague. Plenty of options that do not indicate it was in the hands of a 'murderous mercenary'.
I knew this would work. All it takes to teach you about multiple possibilities is to give you a reason to find some in defense of your own viewpoint.
I was asked for options I gave options.
Phryxis wrote:
All I've been trying to get across to you is that calling the commandos "murderers" is wrong, given all the plausible scenarios in which they would not be.
Now you see how that logic works. Because there are plausible scenarios where the activists didn't have a pistol, you don't wish to presume they had the pistol.
However you dismissed all witnesses as not credible at a whim, and been presumptive with evidence:
Phryxis (much earlier post) wrote:
I think we all can agree that the initial hostilities were initiated by the flotilla. Commandos attempted to fast rope in with non-lethal weapons in hand, and were brutally physically assaulted. It's actually a bit of a miracle that none of the Israelis were killed at this point. We know this for a fact, we've seen the video of it.
Case in point. You accept the very limited coverage that has been released as flat fact, not finding that its odd that its clipped heavily and that other footage known to have been shot it missing. You also seem to take as a given that the activists initiated hostilities.
Admitedly at this point you might not have known that the pepperball guns were being used fro the helicopters from the outset. I didnt at the time.
Phryxis wrote:
Do you not see how hypocritical you're being? You don't like the activists being called "terrorists." I don't either, I think it's wrong. But your response is to be wrong in the other direction, and call the commandos "murderers." There's no proof of that, either.
The fininshing shots from a direction different to previous shots sounds suspicious, I meantioned that if they were finishing moves/coup de grace then the victims were murdered. As the shot direction seems to corroborate eyewitness accounts that say the activists were shot while on the ground there is a good reason to make the claim they were murdered.
1. Direction of wounding
2. eyewtiness reports.
3. Illegality of fininshing off downed opponents.
Its all logical. the fact you dont like where the logic leads is not my problem.
Phryxis wrote:
And, let's be serious. Where do you think it's MOST LIKELY that pistol is? Not where it COULD be. Where it MOST LIKELY ended up after the commando lost it.
Two apparently got into the hands of activists, and apparently caused two gunshot wounds between them. whether this includes this commandoes gun whether he was shot and what happeend to the gun or the person holding it. Who can say.
Phryxis wrote:You're passing yourself off as a forensic expert on this skirmish, and you didn't even know this?
Forensic expertise is not specifically required, just a basic knowledge of human anatomy, front back etc. If the doctors who did the examinations tell us where the activists were shot thats all the forsensics expertise I need right there. Noone is disputing their findings, not that they would have much option so the imformation is good to use.
Phryxis wrote:We don't deserve to have you piss up our leg and tell us it's rain.
Making such comments doesnt add to a weight of opinion, but readers might be hoodwinked into thinking that I havent tried to explain myself properly and you are getting 'justifiably' exasperated. Especially as you claim to be speaking for 'everyone else' by using first person plural. Nice try.
You are bing most unfair. I have taken the time to explain my point of view logically. Please stick to the issues.
Phryxis wrote:
You can repeat this all you want, but you need to understand that nobody besides you considers it a fact.
Speaking for everyone again Phryxis. A little trick to isolate someone from debate.
Phryxis wrote:
It's my understanding that this kid was shot once in the back of the head. One shot does not an execution make. Were there powder burns? The forensic reports give a distance. I'd like to know how they established that.
We dont have that, we had odd data as to where Dogan was hit and it shows he was hit from several directions. Yes we do have a distance this can IIRC be established by the size of the wound and type of bullet used. Its the doctors estimate, I am ok to go with a medical examiners report.
Phryxis wrote:
Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.
Well, they don't at all, but to the people on the boat, they may have. If they had a real carbine to compare to, they'd know the difference, but they didn't. However most people don't realize just how loud a real gun is, so they might think a paintgun was loud enough, without a comparison point.
This is more likely if they were not used to firearms. Most terrorists are likely used to firearms one way or another. Ther more 'peaceful' the activist the more likely they are to misinterpret the incoming fire and panic thinking they were under attack with deadly force. This would be compounded by the lack of visible woubnds on the persons hit. a peace activist with no experienced of armed conflict might have a 'movie' based interpreation of what happens when bullets hit people.
One caveat though, the activists were nerar or directly under helicopters at the time further confusiong what they were hearing.
Phryxis wrote:
Honestly, here's what I think happened:
- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got together some metal pipes to fight back with.
- The commandos started coming in, and the activists went to confront them, not really realizing how much of an upper hand they had. When the commandos started falling down the activists got excited. "We can really win this!" They started wailing on them with pipes.
- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons.
- Total chaos.
- Activists realize that, no, they can't actually win and give up.
Ok here is my alternative version.
- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got onto the deck to wall off any attempted insertion. It looks like the planned strategy was to wall of and immobilise/manhandle any commandoes they encounter without harming anyone.
There is evidence to support this because this is precisely what the activists did do in the wheelhouse. Formed a human wall that the Israelis could not easily break through and could not get away with (or to be fair to them try) to destroy by shooting. Incidentally the human wall was broken down with applied electric shocks. Nasty but I cannot criticise the Israelis there.
Also press still images of commandoes shows them being held down by hand rather than beaten down. even thr Islraeli press used the word 'held down' to describe what happened to the commandoes.
- The Israelis surrounded the aid flotilla and harried them closely for a considerable time. An acceptible tactic so as to disguise the exact plan of attack. This exhausted the activists who were surrounded and harried by boats and helicopters, bright lights, and noise. Again no complaints there, but it would have been unnerving and worn the activists down.
- Helicopters approached very close and activists near the LZ were hit with pepperguns. This caused a panic amongst those activists wwho were unused to military operations.
- The commandos started coming in, and the activists had nowhere to run, even though they thought they were under fire. When the commandos started landing the activists lashed out, some went down and the activists tried to immobilise them. Some commandoes were attacked with batons, knives and two captured pistols by paniced activists. However the commandoes had very few casualties even though many were being held and photgraphed. There was very likely time to shoot or stab commandoews qwho were held down by several activists so itv is not unfair to assume that the majority still wanted to stick with the orginal plan.
- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons. At about this time activists tried to surrender.
- Total chaos.
Phryxis wrote:
This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.
Yes, and then NO.
I agree, these are just civillians, and they had no organization or plan. The story totally supports that, as the Israelis had time to "circle the wagons."
Ok
Phryxis wrote:
However, the second bit here is pure fantasy. They were not in a blind panic. People in a blind panic don't attack. They might fight if cornered, but generally they run away. I think these activists, while disorganized, were emboldened by their earlier success, and thought they were going to have more. When they started getting shot, they realized that wasn't the case, and gave up.
Its a fight or flight instinct we have, with emphasis on the 'or'. Flight is the stronger impulse I agree, but when flight is not possible paniced people fight. The decks were intentionally crowded in oder to form ther human wall. the activists toook planty of people along likely for that purpose. once they thought they were taking live fire from helicopters panic would ensue. commandoes fast rope in and the crowd fenzies. Some of them held enough nerve to stick with plan A form a human wall in the wheelhouse and immobilise rather than kill comandoes. Others grabbed batons and the commandoes pistols and used them in panic. There were suprising few casualties as a result, only two gunshot wounds were reported so its likely that either the commandoes stitched to deadly force pretty much immediately contradicting the commandoes published testimony, or most of the activists remained refused to cross the line even when in direct contact with their enemy. The latter is quite likely as even paniced people will not kill unles it is in their base nature do so. A paniced civilian might flail against a commando by hand but is unlikely to start shooting or stabbing if they are essentially a peaceable person.
Phryxis wrote:
Orlanth, look, this has to stop. I admit, I've been insulting to you in this thread. I apologize for the tone.
Thankyou. I will also not try to rise to the bait.
Phryxis wrote:
But the fact is, you're being EXTREMELY intellectually dishonest. You're repeatedly saying things that you HAVE to know aren't true or even logical.
I will just have to accept you read the same reports differently to me. Please extend the same courtesy.
i have shown logical integrity not dishonesty. I have tried my best to stick to the issues and take the time to point out my logical in related stages that are internally consistent.
You belong to your own paradigm. You draw different conclusions from the same datas so be it. I cannot stop that, that is the point of debate. The gurf between our conclusions give you no right to claim that my conclusions are based on intellectual dishonesty. You ought to know by now that they are not. You are no guarantor of truth, you can at best only offer an alternaste explanation. Try sticking to the issues and your own train of logic. In fact it would be refreshing for you to actually show a train of logical consequence as I have, you normally just post your conclusions and not the thinking between.
Phryxis wrote:
Show a little respect to the rest of us, and stop trying to steamroll us with wild speculation and baseless assertions. Be objective. Be critical of what you're saying. Don't say something unless it's really, truly valid. Don't just say what MIGHT be true, and suits you. Be critical of yourself, instead of everyone else.
Respect for the thread was shown, there is evidence for this because I took the time to point out the logical sequence in what I was saying. I am self critical and objective as evidenced by the same principle. Everything is explained as with the thinking that goes with it. Again I note 'us' (italicised) and appeal to claim to speak for everyone claim to speak for everyone. ad populem is not a valid point of argument, in fact it is a dishonest propoganda technique and contradicts your argument that I am being 'extermely intellectually dishonest' whether posted in block caps or not.
You can and should do better than that.
However you dismissed all witnesses as not credible at a whim
Yeah, ON BOTH SIDES. I am not aware of any impartial witness to this affair.
Also, while I don't find them totally credible, I do think it's important to hear what they all have to say. I just don't take it as a statment of fact. As I said earlier, I look for things we know are true, and for things that both sides agree upon.
We have seen testimony from Israeli commandos as to how they formed perimiters and shot attackers. Are they not credible?
They describe a fairly desperate stand, where they surround their wounded and fight to defend them. Is that not credible?
You also seem to take as a given that the activists initiated hostilities.
No, I consider this to be an accepted fact on all sides...
But I would also understand confusion. I'm not viewing the use of pepperballs as "hostilities." I view the use of metal pipes to beat somebody as "hostilities" and, I believe, both sides agree that this happened before any shooting of actual firearms took place.
If you feel that shooting pepperballs constitutes "hostilities" I wouldn't necessarily disagree, it's just a matter of definitions, and isn't important. What I think IS important is that the use of metal pipes was the first potentially LETHAL act.
Thats what I'm trying to get across. The first truly DANGEROUS action was taken by members of the flotilla.
They may have THOUGHT they were being shot at with real firearms. They may not have known they were taking the first dangerous action, but the fact is, they did.
I meantioned that if they were finishing moves/coup de grace then the victims were murdered.
To be clear, I don't disagree that deliberately shooting an unconscious person in the back of the head is an illegitimate thing to do. I'm not sure it's technically "murder" in this situation, but it's certainly excessive, and I understand fully your disgust with it.
BUT... I see no proof that this happened, and in fact I don't even see any strong implications that this happend. I would think that witnesses would have specifically mentioned this if it happened, but I haven't seen that. I've seen a lot of "they shot them and it was murder" but no mention of "he went over to the downed person and shot him in the head."
And to be clear, shooting somebody who is laying down, say from 25 feet away, is not the same thing (at all) as going over to them while they're down, aiming at the back of their head, and firing. It's very easy to miss and hit somebody on the deck at 25 yards. AND, if you're hiding next to the downed person, all you see is them getting shot, not how much duress the shooter was under, or what he was trying to hit. That would effect your testimony.
So, I see no proof that these executions actually happened. What I do is see is a lot of speculation on your part, and confusion as to how many shots were fired, etc. One second this kid was hit once in the head, then it's three, then it's one... Not only is that not proof of anything, but you can't even seem to keep your not proof straight.
This is what I'm talking about when it comes to being critical of your own views. You can certainly make the argument that the wound patterns COULD be the result of a deliberate execution, but to conclude it with the certainty that you have is just irresposible.
Even if that's what you believe happened, you need to have the sense to know that not everyone is leaping to that conclusion, and so you can't just state it as fact over and over again as if everyone agrees.
Two apparently got into the hands of activists, and apparently caused two gunshot wounds between them.
I'm not clear, did any of the commandos suffer a gunshot wound? I was under the impression that they did not, but you seem to be saying that two gunshots were inflicted on the commandos.
That's actually even worse than I had thought. I had thought the guns were taken, but not effectively used.
You were making arguments that the gun could have gone into the sea, when you KNOW it was in the hands of the activists? See how disingenuous that is?
If the doctors who did the examinations tell us where the activists were shot thats all the forsensics expertise I need right there.
You really can't pull crap like this. Surely you understand how totally unqualified you are to make these judgements? There are people that do this work for a living, who are trained and experienced in piecing together a likely flow of events, and you're obviously not one of them. And even THEY wouldn't claim to know the details you pretend to.
You're an armchair pathologist, and even at that you're extremely poor. Take the American who was shot, Furkan Dogan: "Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle."
To you, it's IMPOSSIBLE that he wasn't executed. But how about this:
He's approaching with a metal pipe. The commando fires low, hoping to stop him, hitting his left leg and ankle. He is unaffected and keeps coming. The commando fires high this time, rapidly as the attacker is now close, the first shot striking his nose, and wounding him badly. He spins away and takes another shot in the back, then one in the head, causing him to collapse. The collapse is all that registers with the commando, causing him to stop firing.
ANOTHER one: He comes around a corner holding a gun, and is immediately shot in the face, causing him to fall. Another activist picks up the pistol, crouches down, and tries to shoot around the corner. In the exchange of fire, the commandos hit the prostrate Dogan four more times in the leg, back and head.
It's VERY possible for this any of this to happen. I'm not saying it's the most likely case. I'm not saying it IS what happened. But you like to pretend that from a brief summary of his wounds, you KNOW he was executed with a gunshot to the back of his neck.
You DON'T know that. Stop claiming you do.
One caveat though, the activists were nerar or directly under helicopters at the time further confusiong what they were hearing.
Actually, its probable that the paintguns wouldn't have been audible over the sound of the choppers. They may not have noticed the shooting at all.
even thr Islraeli press used the word 'held down' to describe what happened to the commandoes.
But we see one with a considerable amount of blood on him. He is also, clearly being held down, but he has also clearly been injured badly enough to soak articles of clothing in blood. There is a drawn knife visible, which is not a useful tool for holding somebody down.
So I agree, they were held down, but they were also beaten very badly with metal pipes. You can see the blows coming down in the videos.
when flight is not possible paniced people fight.
Two problems... Flight WAS possible. The commandos had circled up. They weren't pursuing anybody. And even when "fight" is the response, it's not to pursue and attack, it's to stand ground and fight. It's also done as an individual, not as a group. A group of people don't experience the effect.
There's simply no way that a group of people would attack armed commandos in a "panic." They would have to be much more confident for that.
It's not reasonable to just say "panic" and then assume any action after that point is fair game.
And hey, if it is, why aren't the commandos, surrounded and defending their wounded under gunfire, also in a "panic?"
I will just have to accept you read the same reports differently to me. Please extend the same courtesy.
i have shown logical integrity not dishonesty.
I understand that you feel that way, but I simply can't agree. I don't think you're holding yourself to the same standards of accuracy that you expect the Israelis to hold themselves to. Considering that you have nothing to lose and the Israelis DO, you should be that much MORE accurate than them.
I would gladly extend you the courtesy if you were talking anywhere NEAR logic or reason. I have shown that. For example, while loki is more on your side of events than mine, he's not making the sort of flagrantly ridiculous allegations you are, so I can respect what he's saying.
I will always do the courtesy of respecting a well stated position. I simply can't agree that everything you've said, or even a small minority of what you've said, fits that description.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
What coordinated melee? The only coordination evident was the common desire to hit Israelis with pipes, and even that wasn't displayed by all the activists. Even if you want to consider that as coordination, it does not indicated either premeditation, or a lack of panic. Panicking people are highly open to suggestion, and can often be turned towards an otherwise undesired end. The reality of panic is very different from panic in a war game, and very often features individuals who will fight, even in a coordinated fashion, rather than take to flight.
Regardless, this thread has become little more than a litany of equivocal statements; thanks primarily to Frazzled and Orlanth.
Frazzled wrote:No. It’s a military blockade to keep enemy forces from obtaining weapons to kill Israeli civilians with. vessels that don't heave to are historically blown out of the water. the israelis were stupidly trying to not antagonize the situation. Wrong move.
Incorrect. There is far more historical precedence for the avoidance of sinking shipping while enforcing a blockade. The incidences of 'blockade' in which sinking was the goal are very difficult to distinguish from ordinary combat at sea, which leaves us in danger of claiming that all naval combats is necessarily a blockade.
Additionally, I fail to see how boarding the vessels was the 'wrong move'. Surely the negative press for sinking the ship would have been far worse than what is currently being directed their way for killing a few of its passengers or crew.
Frazzled wrote:
No. Its ethical to enforce the blockade (ask the British). Its ethical to kill your enemy. Its ethical to kill the guys trying to kill you.
Boarding a ship is enforcing the blockade, so you haven't countered the initial point. Furthermore, Turkey is not the enemy of Israel. I'll also assume that your first response to such a point would be "Terrorists are the enemies of Israel." and preemptively contend that no one aboard the flotilla has been shown to be a terrorist.
Frazzled wrote:
***No proof that occurred. If it were me I’d have sunk the ship. The riot is prima facae proof they have weapons hidden on board.
No it isn't. The proof that weapons were hidden on board is made manifest by the discovery of slingshots and IEDs aboard the vessel. It is quite the stretch to consider pipes as hidden weapons when the place they are 'hidden' is a ship. By that standard of 'hidden weapons' all ships have them aboard. Not pipes, specifically, but objects of similar utility.
Frazzled wrote:
Ships trying to run a blockade are historically sunk. Time honored British, US, German, etc etc tradition.
Again, this is false. You need look no further than the Cuban Missile Crisis to see that the issue of historical blockade enforcement is far more complicated than you seem to be indicating.
Orlanth wrote:The soldier inteviewed gave no-one any doubt that in his eyes the opponents were active combatants not civilian miscreants, also a large measure of contempt can also be detected from the interview.
Some of the comments made by the soldiers lead to worrying questions regarding the Israeli military, but I'm also willing to allow for emotion and the possibility that they are simply the result of poor translation; as I doubt the statements were originally made in English.
Orlanth wrote:
Dehumanising ones opponent is a common technique, but it is supposed to be applied only to enemy armed combatants and their policitcal leaders, it is very unhealthy to apply this technique when refering to opposed civilians, so as to prevent such trajedies as we have seen.
I'm not sure that any dehumanization is going on here. There is, perhaps, a disregard for specific human lives, but that is not dehumanization; eg. calling one's opponent an animal.
Some of the comments made by the soldiers lead to worrying questions regarding the Israeli military
I dunno, they're soldiers. They tend to be aggressive, violent people, especially guys like these that do these kinds of operations.
As you alluded to, they were landing on a ship, expecting minimal violence, and ended up getting severely beaten on. It turned out that none of them died, but I have a feeling there were moments where they didn't think they'd make it. They were being shot at. That tends to make you very angry.
It's especially infuriating when you know your intention wasn't to do violence. If you go in, thinking about how you're going to avoid hurting anybody, and then get the crap kicked out of you, it causes a real backlash. Everything about this operation gives me the impression that the commandos expected minimal violence.
There have been past boarding operations where the Israelis seized huge amounts of weapons, but were not opposed with any violence at all. One assumes they anticipated as much here.
As I pointed out in one of the other threads there are serious concerns in Israel over the diminishing capability of their armed forces. Occupation won’t just brutalise the occupied, it’ll brutalise the occupier and that can impact discipline and decision making quite poorly.
I think the actionsof the soldiers once on the boat were alright, but the decision to fast rope onto the boat in the first place was remarkably stupid. It is one of a growing number of poor IDF decisions in the last decade. Both the Lebanon and Gaza operations were very poorly executed.
Israel would not be the first country to find their military capability severely diminished by a protracted occupation.
Phryxis wrote:
I dunno, they're soldiers. They tend to be aggressive, violent people, especially guys like these that do these kinds of operations.
Its not so much the hostility in the statements that bother me, but what they said, and the fact that they were allowed to say it. For example, the denotation of the activists as 'mercenaries' leads one to wonder who hired them, and how the Israelis know they were hired. Not that the activists actually were mercenaries, the soldier may have simply made an off the cuff remark which was may have been subsequently mistranslated, but one is still lead to wonder.
Israel would not be the first country to find their military capability severely diminished by a protracted occupation.
Yeah, but they've been doing this for a very long time...
Honestly, I think the issue that's hurting them is the same one that's hurting all dominant military powers... It's the internet.
It didn't used to be that you could see (nearly) realtime video of everything going on everywhere, all the time. Now every mistake is all over the internet within 24 hours. That makes it harder to operate, and it also makes people more sensitive in general.
In the first Gulf War, the American military caught the Iraqi army as it fled Kuwait, and slaughtered them unmercifully. The "Highway of Death" incident. There was some backlash even back then, but I think that today, such a action would be a major media event.
Crazy as it is to think, that was nearly 20 years ago. A long time, and a lot has changed.
But that was the first "televised" war, and the fallout is still going on.
So, I don't necessarily think Israel's military is significantly weaker than it has been, I think they're just crippled by the public relations pressures that the world has begun to exert on any nation that uses force.
I find the "whoa, you mean people get hurt in war?" attitude to be childish and ridiculous, but it's also a reality that has to be dealt with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example, the denotation of the activists as 'mercenaries' leads one to wonder who hired them
But yeah, neither side of this debate has a strong track record in terms of honesty in reporting and released information.
For me what sticks out is the parts reported in Palestinian media. They've got quotes from people. If it's fabricated, it's a pretty elaborate fabrication.
The mention of the cash on the "mercenaries" is odd. It seems like if you did get paid, you'd send the cash home.
Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.
What coordinated melee? The only coordination evident was the common desire to hit Israelis with pipes, and even that wasn't displayed by all the activists. Even if you want to consider that as coordination, it does not indicated either premeditation, or a lack of panic. Panicking people are highly open to suggestion, and can often be turned towards an otherwise undesired end. The reality of panic is very different from panic in a war game, and very often features individuals who will fight, even in a coordinated fashion, rather than take to flight.
It may not have appeared coordinated- the video available is rather limited. But it looked like a rather coordinated defense to me, and Im looking at that with several years of corrections experience and having had to face down riots before, not just a perspective form some video game. The way they peeled off into little groups and focused their attack on the IDF guys is what looks like organization. #1 Drops in, they all attack, as #2 start to drop 4 or 5 of them keep beating on #1 and try to throw him overboard. Once hes over they get back to looking for the next guy to lay thier pipes on. That many people trying to lay a beat down on just a few guys at a time requires some coordination- otherwise in the dark all those swinging pipes would get in eachothers way and couldnt swing- they had good spacing. Its entirely possible they were just randomly doing it, just like its possible the IDF commandos were dropping onto the deck to have a ham sandwhich with the protestors.
Thats just my professional opinion mind you, I realize in internet debates over a dozen years of corrections and security experience probably doesnt seem like much to some, but its closer to an 'expert' opinion on something than alot of the repetitive chest thumping thats been in this thread.
Phryxis wrote:
For me what sticks out is the parts reported in Palestinian media. They've got quotes from people. If it's fabricated, it's a pretty elaborate fabrication.
The mention of the cash on the "mercenaries" is odd. It seems like if you did get paid, you'd send the cash home.
Yeah, that sort of stuck out, but if they did indeed have cash on them it seems probable that they were paid on arrival; meaning they probably didn't have time to send the money elsewhere.
Phryxis wrote:So, I don't necessarily think Israel's military is significantly weaker than it has been, I think they're just crippled by the public relations pressures that the world has begun to exert on any nation that uses force.
I find the "whoa, you mean people get hurt in war?" attitude to be childish and ridiculous, but it's also a reality that has to be dealt with.
That’s not quite what I’m getting at. The world at large almost entirely ignores what Israel does in Palestine, the media at large gives no hint of the scope of Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands, and the Western world at large doesn’t care. Part of my issue with people focussing on the boat operation in particular is that it really is a drop in the bucket of what’s happening in Palestine. The only thing that’s different about this is that Palestine managed to get this event on the news, running the blockade was a media savvy idea.
The point I’m getting at is that a protracted occupation leaves you with a lesser army. Running patrols through neighbourhoods that hate you and might be trying to kill you gets old fast, and once you’ve been doing it for a few years and can’t see an end in sight it starts to change your outlook on service. Discipline falls, skills diminish and organisational effectiveness drops. The IDF that made such a mess of the Lebanon and Gaza operations a few years ago is not the IDF of the Six Day War.
My point is that Israel needs to find a stable, peaceful solution for the sake of their own defence force.
Apparently the IDF thinks they were actual mercenaries...
That article is pretty screwy. It’s claiming 50 men were paid $10,000 each, a total of half a million dollars, to fight the IDF, in the event that the IDF fast roped onto the boat. The Turkish government, or whoever, wouldn’t have known they were going to fastrope, and just paid the guys half a million all up in the hopes they would be. They wouldn’t have known which boat would be raided, so presumably they either got really lucky, or paid half a million to put guys on every boat in the flotilla, that’d ten million in cash in the hopes that one boat was boarded.
Despite all this money getting splashed out, it never occurred to anyone to do it with discrete bank transfers. Instead it was done with cash in envelopes, which the crew then took on the boat with them…
It’s a very, very dubious story. I mean, I have no problem believing that members of the flotilla were associated or even direct members of militant organisations, I’d be surprised if none were, that’s the makeup of political activist groups. The idea that the flotilla was undertaken in the hopes of executing an ambush if the IDF fastroped onto one of the boats is pretty crazy, though.
I think fast roping onto the decks of certain boat types is the standard rapid boarding method- depending on how high a ship stick out of the water, seaborne boarding from a RIB isnt a very viable option when its under way. And using a helo deployment means they can have a crew with a fueled up chopper or two within 100 miles- and they can be there in about 30 minutes. That gives th helos involved decent loiter time in case they need to extract wounded or rescue anyone in the water. Its not like they need to have a helicopter in the air all the time for it- alot of people dont seem to realize just how small that area can be.
So, if the theoretical 'bad guys' were trying to bait a boarding action like this- and were aware of the IDF SOP & doctrines, its possible. When it comes to politics like this, 500,000$ is small potatoes for the black eye it caused Israel. So, its possible, but even if its true, at this point Israels credibility is damaged, and theyd need some seriously incontrovertable proof for that. Otherwise it just sounds like the local TFG with his CIA/NSA conspiracy theories.
The world at large almost entirely ignores what Israel does in Palestine, the media at large gives no hint of the scope of Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands, and the Western world at large doesn’t care.
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
The world at large almost entirely ignores what Israel does in Palestine, the media at large gives no hint of the scope of Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands, and the Western world at large doesn’t care.
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
You should probably stop posting in this thread until you can learn some modicum of restraint concerning your posts. They're almost universally unrelated to the topic at hand and it's pretty clear you're just grasping at straws to strike out at these groups in whatever verbal way you can.
Relapse wrote:
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
Well, for one, you seem to care about Israel. Given that, it stands to reason that you would take an interest with respect to their conduct regarding the Palestinians, as, no matter what you think of it, it is directly connected to security.
Of course, it may be that you don't care about Israel either. In which case I'm left to wonder why you would even post in this thread.
Relapse wrote:
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
Well, for one, you seem to care about Israel. Given that, it stands to reason that you would take an interest with respect to their conduct regarding the Palestinians, as, no matter what you think of it, it is directly connected to security.
Of course, it may be that you don't care about Israel either. In which case I'm left to wonder why you would even post in this thread.
Given as how I didn't see any Israelis dancing in the streets when the Towers fell, but I did see footage of Palistinians having a party over the event, I find myself caring a lot more for Israel and it's security than I do about people that would like nothing better than see us dead.
As far as I'm concerned, the flotilla was bringing aid and comfort to the enemy and testing Israel's resolve to blockade.
Relapse wrote:
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
Well, for one, you seem to care about Israel. Given that, it stands to reason that you would take an interest with respect to their conduct regarding the Palestinians, as, no matter what you think of it, it is directly connected to security.
Of course, it may be that you don't care about Israel either. In which case I'm left to wonder why you would even post in this thread.
Given as how I didn't see any Israelis dancing in the streets when the Towers fell, but I did see footage of Palistinians having a party over the event, I find myself caring a lot more for Israel and it's security than I do about people that would like nothing better than see us dead.
As far as I'm concerned, the flotilla was bringing aid and comfort to the enemy and testing Israel's resolve to blockade.
Hence why no one really respects your posts concerning international politics and why they always seem to result in either ignores or the devolvement of the threads they are posted in.
Relapse wrote:
Given as how I didn't see any Israelis dancing in the streets when the Towers fell, but I did see footage of Palistinians having a party over the event, I find myself caring a lot more for Israel and it's security than I do about people that would like nothing better than see us dead.
Israeli security is inextricably linked to the conditions in Gaza, that was my original point. Personally, I don't particularly care about either side, I'm merely interested in the situation in the sense that its a rapidly evolving case study in prolonged occupation, paramilitary mobilization, and conflict resolution.
Oh, and for the effect it has on US security vis a vis the Iranian nuclear program.
Relapse wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the flotilla was bringing aid and comfort to the enemy and testing Israel's resolve to blockade.
I imagine you also take issue with the fact that USAID supplies aid to Gaza.
Relapse wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the flotilla was bringing aid and comfort to the enemy and testing Israel's resolve to blockade.
I imagine you also take issue with the fact that USAID supplies aid to Gaza.
I take issue with the fact the flotilla seems to be a propaganda ploy and a set up for other ships to endager Israel's security by supplying terrorists with what they need to attack Israel, should Israel have let this flotilla through the blockade.
The only thing that’s different about this is that Palestine managed to get this event on the news, running the blockade was a media savvy idea.
I don't see this as any different than anything that's come before. The only potential difference is that Turkey is involved. Otherwise it's the same as always. A big outrage in the media, then forgotten.
On one hand, I agree, the West doesn't seem to ultimately care, because nothing real is ever done. On the other hand, that's how Europe responds to pretty much everything. They talk a lot, and get upset, and then do nothing. So I'm not sure if it's accurate to say they don't care, in that they care as much as they care about anything, which is not very much.
They wouldn’t have known which boat would be raided, so presumably they either got really lucky, or paid half a million to put guys on every boat in the flotilla, that’d ten million in cash in the hopes that one boat was boarded.
Well, they boarded them all... And as I understand it, the one where the incident ocurred was the largest ship, so the most likely to be boarded, and the one most likely to be fast roped onto. I also believe that the fast rope entry is pretty standard with Israeli operations like this.
In fact, I'm not sure there's really any other option with a boat of a sufficient size. It's just not possible to get up the side from a small boat, and a bigger boat would be too dangerous to get close with. I saw video of Scandanavians (possibly Swedes?) taking over a hijacked cargo ship (from Somalis), and they fast roped in. I'm not sure I've ever seen it done any other way.
That said, it doesn't have to be a fast rope specific defense. It's not like you go to the Mercenary Bazaar in Turkey, and then browse to the Anti-Fast-Rope Section. They just got a bunch of dudes together and had a plan. In that respect, the title of "Mercenary" seems a bit overblown. It sounds like the guys that died, even if they were paid, were just randoms who all got together and had a plan. That doesn't make you a real "mercenary" so much as a hired goon. Mercenaries, by today's standards, are all former military, usually former elite military, and well armed.
Relapse wrote:
Why should I care what happens to people that were filmed dancing in the streets and having a celebration because some terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 plus of my countrymen?
There was a lot of news footage of streets full of happy Palistinians thinking it was a great and wonderful event.
Well, for one, you seem to care about Israel. Given that, it stands to reason that you would take an interest with respect to their conduct regarding the Palestinians, as, no matter what you think of it, it is directly connected to security.
Of course, it may be that you don't care about Israel either. In which case I'm left to wonder why you would even post in this thread.
Given as how I didn't see any Israelis dancing in the streets when the Towers fell, but I did see footage of Palistinians having a party over the event, I find myself caring a lot more for Israel and it's security than I do about people that would like nothing better than see us dead.
As far as I'm concerned, the flotilla was bringing aid and comfort to the enemy and testing Israel's resolve to blockade.
Hence why no one really respects your posts concerning international politics and why they always seem to result in either ignores or the devolvement of the threads they are posted in.
His opinions have no more or less value just because you dont agree with it.
His point on the mindset of the Palestinians is a valid one- as its a totally foreign mindset from what we're used to. Unless you've been to the middle east you probably dont understand that. Some western nations may feel sorry for the Palestinians- but theyve had alot of time to work things out peacefully and co-exist, but they havent. Theyre sticking with traditional values of the region and then, its the same sort of feud that has gone on there for generations. This is why the only succesful wars in the middle east- have always been rather brutal affairs where entire tribes were totally wiped out- otherwise the survivors will keep fighting for generations to come even when theres nothing obvious to gain from it.
Relapse wrote:
I take issue with the fact the flotilla seems to be a propaganda ploy and a set up for other ships to endager Israel's security by supplying terrorists with what they need to attack Israel, should Israel have let this flotilla through the blockade.
The issue is considerably more complicated than that; primarily in the sense that running a blockade doesn't necessarily have anything to do with getting through; as you pointed out. But I don't understand the hostility towards propaganda, though that may simply be the result of my understanding of the term.
I see propaganda as communication with the intent to influence a body of people that may, or may not, be rigidly defined. By that standard nearly any attempt at public persuasion is propagandistic. I will grant that the term if most often used pejoratively. Though that doesn't get us much further than your initial comment indicating your dislike for Palestinians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:I also believe that the fast rope entry is pretty standard with Israeli operations like this.
It also appears that the Israelis initially attempted to board from their rigid inflatables only to have their grappling hooks dislodged by the activists.
This makes it seem more protracted and disjointed than I pictured it being. There are wounded people, which means there must be commandos on the boat to wound them, but the people seem generally free to wander around and do what they will.
It's extremely clear there's no panic here at all.
What's not clear is the timing. It seems like injured are coming down over a fairly long period of time?
On some level I feel sorta stupid for assuming the battle was fast and furious. Real fights tend to be much more gradual, protracted and dull than the movies would suggest. I had pictured the whole thing taking maybe 10-15 minutes. This suggests it was more like two hours.
I'm picturing that the commandos are elsewhere, surrounding their wounded similarly to how these people are surrounding their own. I'm guessing the "alphas" of the activists are making periodic attacks on the commandos and getting shot?
Mistress of minis wrote:
His point on the mindset of the Palestinians is a valid one- as its a totally foreign mindset from what we're used to. Unless you've been to the middle east you probably dont understand that.
Interestingly, I've been to the Middle East quite a few times, I even lived in Istanbul for 3 months between semesters in college, and I think the whole alien quality of the region is massively overblown.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Some western nations may feel sorry for the Palestinians- but theyve had alot of time to work things out peacefully and co-exist, but they havent. Theyre sticking with traditional values of the region and then, its the same sort of feud that has gone on there for generations.
That statement could be applied to Israel as well.
Mistress of minis wrote:
This is why the only succesful wars in the middle east- have always been rather brutal affairs where entire tribes were totally wiped out- otherwise the survivors will keep fighting for generations to come even when theres nothing obvious to gain from it.
That's not correct. Note the tribal variance across Iraq, and how that was held in check despite the continued existence of antagonistic forces; at least until the dominant power was eliminated, but that's the way of any power vacuum. Egypt is another good example in that Nasser's state was able to effectively leash together a coalition of otherwise opposing forces by painting the Egyptian struggle as a single manifestation of a Pan-Arab identity. Something similar happened, more successfully, in Turkey. And then, of course, we have Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Mistress of minis wrote:
His point on the mindset of the Palestinians is a valid one- as its a totally foreign mindset from what we're used to. Unless you've been to the middle east you probably dont understand that.
Interestingly, I've been to the Middle East quite a few times, I even lived in Istanbul for 3 months between semesters in college, and I think the whole alien quality of the region is massively overblown.
Well, Im not talking about just the religion(which does get overblown). But just alot of their basic cultural tenets. Your time in Istanbul does lend better perspective than most- but the larger cities are generally more progressive than the outlying areas- which is generally where your militant types are coming from. City people dont want the stuff they build and work for getting blown up- out of towners dont have that kind of attachment
dogma wrote:
Mistress of minis wrote:
Some western nations may feel sorry for the Palestinians- but theyve had alot of time to work things out peacefully and co-exist, but they havent. Theyre sticking with traditional values of the region and then, its the same sort of feud that has gone on there for generations.
That statement could be applied to Israel as well.
Any peace process has 2 sides, but electing a party that bears the name of the same people that have been blowing up Isrealis- doesnt bode well as a sincere gesture at peace.
dogma wrote:
Mistress of minis wrote:
This is why the only succesful wars in the middle east- have always been rather brutal affairs where entire tribes were totally wiped out- otherwise the survivors will keep fighting for generations to come even when theres nothing obvious to gain from it.
That's not correct. Note the tribal variance across Iraq, and how that was held in check despite the continued existence of antagonistic forces; at least until the dominant power was eliminated, but that's the way of any power vacuum. Egypt is another good example in that Nasser's state was able to effectively leash together a coalition of otherwise opposing forces by painting the Egyptian struggle as a single manifestation of a Pan-Arab identity. Something similar happened, more successfully, in Turkey. And then, of course, we have Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
You dont think its correct- thats ok. It was a general statement which means there will be exceptions like the ones you mentioned(but others that fall well into the stereotype) But when you look at most of the survivng tribes- they arent the ones with a war like heritage- the aggressive tribes either conquered or were defeated. Many of the tribal groups that survive today were more passive in nature and capitulated to being ruled. Im not just talking about recent history here- Im talking about looking at it from a pre-Ottoman perspective. Then, once you start adding in European influences to control the area, thats where many of the current day nations got their boundaries. And those boundaries didnt do the best job at respecting the traditional lands of many tribes. Some accepted the change- others got pissy about it. The crux of it still boils down to this- when you take foreign lands and chop them up into countries on a map without regard for the social forces at work- it makes a mess. Same thing happened with Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. Same thing is happening with many of the nations that were formed like that. Some cultures adapt to changes better than others and at different rates- and what were seeing with alot of these conflicts today are basically growing pains as these places forge thier national identities- or fight to reclaim what they feel belongs to them(like Pakistan and India). I mean, we could get into all the things that changed the Middle east, how the Mughals, the Crusades, 18th & 19th centruy colonization etc etc. But most people seem to prefer to have a hundred year limit on thier history- makes it easier to remember, and easier to see that things like this havent happened over & over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
His opinions have no more or less value just because you dont agree with it.
I disagree as that would conceptually place all opinions on a level playing field so far as value goes and I don't accept that.
Because you would then have to accept your opinions arent just more valuable because you think they are. Opinions are a level playing field- having substance to back them up are another matter.
Because you would then have to accept your opinions arent just more valuable because you think they are. Opinions are a level playing field- having substance to back them up are another matter.
Says the woman who in every "conversation" we have had has basically cried semantics and "run away" after establishing a shifting sands argument that alters with every exchange.
His point on the mindset of the Palestinians is a valid one- as its a totally foreign mindset from what we're used to. Unless you've been to the middle east you probably dont understand that.
Well, Im not talking about just the religion(which does get overblown). But just alot of their basic cultural tenets. Your time in Istanbul does lend better perspective than most- but the larger cities are generally more progressive than the outlying areas- which is generally where your militant types are coming from. City people dont want the stuff they build and work for getting blown up- out of towners dont have that kind of attachment
Case in point. You argue a lack of perspective in others (as you did in your first thread opposite me) than when presented with a strong counterpoint you alter your argument to allow it to continue alongside the counterpoint as if you were right all along. Realistically you were arguing cultural tendencies and viewpoints and the fairly ambiguous concept of them being alien to ours. When presented with a counterpoint you alter your argument to become one of poverty vs prosperity and the cultural impact of bias in areas of poor education. So if it's not a totally foreign mindset except in the rural areas, and that mindset is born of poverty, what makes it alien? What makes it uniquely middle eastern? Is it so separate from thai rural protestors or tribal support of maoist rebels in india? If we're talking about palestinians in particular, did you know that Hamas is one of the highest paying career choice in the region? A police officer working for Hamas (The defacto government in the region) is paid several times the regional average. But I guess they don't live in places that they care enough about to go legit. Y'know, since policework is paramount to shooting rockets into israel.
Notably you switch from argumentative fallacy to argumentative fallacy with (virtually) every post, though weasel wording remains consistent throughout.
)
