Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:I still cant believe everybody is arguing about this.

Any person here would have started blatting the "hippies" (the most aggressive and violent hippies i have ever seen so i use the term loosely) as soon as they started getting beat up with pipes and chairs and realised they were outnumbered twenty to one.

Instead of just incessantly whining about Israel again, just watch that video and be honest with yourself, even if you feel you have nothing in common with a soldier or a fighting man, you would be papping yourself if you were roping down to that deck. And if your scared, you will use whatever weapon you have to stop that angry mob from getting to grips with you.

Frankly i think the Israelis showed remarkable restraint. If i was the second guy down that rope i would have iced way more than 10 of them. Id have brassed everyone on the deck up and then slept like a baby that same night. feth em. Try and kill my teammates and ill happily fill you with lead and then go for a pint afterwards.

The more i watch it, the more i think it was a set up. The protestors wanted a fight from the moment they set off, they were no ordinary flower power hippies thats for damn sure, and im glad the Israelis didnt disapoint.

And if an Irish boat is trying it again, no doubt it will be full of British idiots as well as Irish, Turkish etc

Just so you know i am unbiased in this matter, i dont care if everyone of the crew are from the UK, gak, i dont care if they are from my street. I think they should stop playing with fire and i think the IDF should just torpedo the fething thing and not risk any of their guys necks with another ridiculously ill conceived boarding action.

TL;DR:

Or divert the ship to Antarctica so they ca help protest against the Japanese whalers.

I personally think that if the Israelis are going to kill the Palestinians and take their land they should learn from the Americans and do it right; with diseased blankets! Can't beat a classic.

Mortified Penguin wrote:I personally think that if the Israelis are going to kill the Palestinians and take their land they should learn from the Americans and do it right; with diseased blankets! Can't beat a classic.

That was the british, we already discussed that.

Orlanth wrote: You know sometimes I have wish we had the IDF or the US Army policing Northern Ireland for a week or so, then they might appreciate the restraint of the UK Armed Forces. This was unrelated to todays events but just a dream based on the accusations of heavy handedness laid out against our own forces.

Yes Bloody Sunday was a feth up, but it was just about the only one in twenty years, the IDF respond with autofire if they get a stone thrown at them by kids. Can you imagine what would have happened if a 'day in Gaza' turned up in West Belfast during the Troubles and a few kids throwing stones got shot. The IRA used to pay kids to throw stones then run out a gunman close behind them and take a shot using the kids as cover. Soldiers couldn't effectively shoot back. Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there, but I also think the IDF go way too far, as do the Yanks.
Look at Iraq, Basra was held with minimal unrest and few civilian casualties, the situation further north got worse and worse because of poorer fire discipline by US forces. Eventually the hatred spread back down south as Iraqis ceased making a distinction and looked at all the invaders as the same. But that was not our fault.

Indeed, ive got a related story (see below) and when i was in Northern Ireland i wanted to bust some heads, but i never did, its called being professional. I think being heavy handed is no way to win a war as the only way to do it is to win "hearts and minds" no matter how much this grates on the soldiers on the ground. Im well aware of this and it makes perfect tactical sense, violence begets violence and killing someone generally leads to their relatives and children taking up the fight. Doesnt mean i have to like it though does it?

Regards this issue though mate, i wouldnt have been scared, ive been in worse situations. And your right, its down to training, but id have made a professional decision to open up on those fethers. Sure as eggs is eggs.

If i went to the deck with that many people behaving that aggresively i would expect to be beaten to death. I watched it, ive seen it before, and id have went live as soon as a teammate went down under a flurry of blows. No question.

Now, as i said before, the op was a monumental feth up, and they should have had beanbag guns, gas, batons, the works. They also shouldnt have fastroped down onto the deck, they should have used RIBs or MIBs and took 4 times as many guys. But they didnt, and in that situation i would have calmly started slotting people.

Orlanth wrote: I am very sorry to say this, but I am wondering who I am talking to, don't you mean you wish you could been there and iced ten of them. That is soldier talk. The guys I know would have been on that deck and done their job with no fatalities, but then again they were Pongos/Brown Jobs. Yes abseiling onto a ship will be different than being on the streets of Basra outnumbered lots to one and managing to hold the line after being told to use rifle stocks only, but the training remains similar.

Mate, explain to me how they would achieve it?

Ive done that exact same thing, Its called fastroping not absailing and can be done operationally from between 30 to 90 feet. Basically, you put on a pair of thick gloves, sling your kit round your back and throw yourself out of the helo. It allows you to instantly have your weapon in hand and on target within 3 seconds of landing as you are not required to clip on to anything. Its more dangerous as a result and as soon as they started grabbing the line then the commandos arses would have started nipping!

Anyway. Ive done 6 operational tours. 2 of Iraq, 2 Afghanistan, 1 Sierra Leone, 1 Northern Ireland. Ive done public order training numerous times, and actual public order on the ground more than once. If you have the men (minimum of a full troop) the equipment, (6 foot shields, batons, helmets and visors and a baton gunner per 8 men) you could form up, make a shield wall deal with that crowd easily with no fatalities. Easy.

But fast roping into a mob one at a time?!

Not going to happen.

In my opinion your just flat out wrong on this Orlanth. They had maybe 6 guys on the deck and they were getting swarmed as soon as their boots hit the boat.

By the second man the crowd had control of the rope. It was an absolute tactical disaster. But there is no way any of your friends could have done anything in that situation other than get the gak beat out of them or start shooting. I would go for option 2 even after enjoy watching it with the luxury of youtube sat at home. If i was actually on that boat and i roped down into that mess. No question.

If we took RIBs and MIBs up to the boat, sure, i could get the job done. But in that absurd situation there was only gonna be two outcomes, and i dont fancy the first.

Orlanth wrote: This is where we differ, if I may be bold to suggest I think your memory from service in the Middle East is soiling your judgement here. I am wondering if you have crossed the line into thinking the only good Arab is a dead one.

Mate, how many times have i said this? Ive had everyone trying to paint me as the bad guy when i openly admit it and have done several times!

My middle east tours HAVE soiled my judgement and ive admitted it several times. I never once crossed a line when i was serving, as my commitment to professionalism outweighed my own desire to open a can of whup ass on some of the dirtbags we tagged and sent off to their pleasant cells to get a cold bottle of water and a hot meal. But i didnt like it.

The reason i left my job after ten years examplary service was because during my final tour we were banned from killing fighters we saw digging mines in around our AO, they are easy to spot using imaging equipment from the high ground on a night and there are a limited number of good firing positions in our AO.

Anyway, at the start of the tour we were shooting them, dropping mortars onto them, the occasional milan etc... because there was no civilian towns for several kilometers, and it was obvious they werent digging for carrots. But this was deemed to be too aggressive. So we started doing "warning shots" and at first they would run off, but they would come back shortly after. A few weeks of this, and they were fearless, and funny thing mines started appearing everywhere. I spoke to my Boss about it, i said "does someone have to die before they let us do what we need to?" and he said "yeah yeah Matty i know the score but our hands are tied"

2 weeks later my troop boss Lt John Thornton and Marine Dave Marsh rolled their fire support vehicle onto a mine and were killed, i put my notice in a week later.

I was involved in at least 100 close range firefights, it got worse every year i went, i was well trained, i dont have nightmares, PTSD, cold sweats or depression, but sure, i hate Muslims. Ive never denied it, and i fully accept i would be a better person if i didnt. But i do, and i probably always will.

But this is dakkadakka, and ive retired, so i can say what i feel and not worry about it making a jot of difference to our military efforts. I dont think its a good idea to torpedo boats or be ridiculously aggressive. But id be lying if i said i wouldnt like to see it done.

If you want to chastise me further, do it via PM so i dont have to hijack this thread with my life story, im currently getting plenty of judgemental PMs, so i should be able to just cut and paste you a reply in no time at all!

Orlanth wrote: Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there.

Irish =Scum?

Please to define scum. Are you talking about the Protestant instigators that carry on the family traditions handed down from their Black and Tan ancestors? The IRA who are in much the same way carrying on a family tradition of retaliation and revolution? The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

I know it sucks being in that kind of situation but you have to watch that your bitterness doesn't turn into a blind prejudice.

focusedfire wrote:

Orlanth wrote: Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there.

The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

Never would have let it happen on my watch, and i dont know any soldiers who would have turned a blind eye to crimes, young British men didnt seem to have much of an interest or bias either way when i was there, you tend to think the whole lot of them are being ridiculous, but now your just derailing the thread even further and your post was pointless.

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

See, we can all do it.

I honestly think that a solution can be formulised based on finger pointing at the US. Its not nice or entirely fair but workable, and with someothing for everyone. This is how the thinking goes.

Logic chain A.

1. Israel is seen as increasingly unstable and other countries especially China are rising to challenge the dominance of the US.

2. Europe is distencing themselves from the US with regards to Israel.

3. The general concensus, which is not unfair is: Israel gets away with what it does because a) the US uses its Un veto and b) the US provides arms and armament technology to Israel.

4. While left largely unspoken it is known that the US broke nuclear proliferation rules to assist in the devlopment of the Israeli nuclear deterent.

Consequence:
5. Therefore the blame for the current problems in the Middle East can be sourced to backing from Washington.


Logic Chain B.

1. Soundbite: 'If Americans can pay to cause the problem, America can pay to fix it.'

2. The US gives several billion dollars in aid money each year to support the Israeli economy and military.

3. Israel wouldn't not need a large proportion of that money if there was peace in the Middle East.

4. Peace can exist and progressively is existing between Arab states and Israel.

5. This peace is supported by political and economic support by Europe and the US.

Consequence:
6. Charge the US with the fiscal responsibility for the Arab Israeli crisis.


Logic Chain C.

1. Many Americans are increasingly tired of the blanket support seen to be given to Israel.

2. Other Americans want nothing less than a hardcore Zionist 'victory'.

3. 'Victory' entails handing over the occupied territories to Israel for the purposes of a single majority Jewish state.

4. Israeli arabs and Christian minorities can exist peacefully within Israel.

5. Independent Palestinains cannot without a national border.

6. Such a border would cause fear and therefore friction on both sides. Palestinians remembering their long oppression would seek revenge given the opportunity, Israelis are themselves tied into a policy of heavy handed aggression that cannot be broken internally.

Consequence:
7. An Israeli/Palestinain border cannot exist without bloodshed and oppression.


Logic Chain D.

1. As the border cannot exist Israel/Palestine can exist as only one nation.

2. As removing Israel is all but impossible and is the only option for a Jewish state unlike several options for Arab states Palestine must instead be removed.

3. Palestinians are currently being removed in sequence anyway. Often by inhumane or underhand means.

4. Palestinians however can be relcoated by the US government by force if necessary as part of the established US fiscal responsibility.

Consequence:
5. The US and Israel pays to relocate the Palestinian community.


Logic Chain E.

1. Some Palestinians may well be welcome as Israeli citizens, this includes coverts to Judaism, those considered harmless by the Israelis and a small pro-Israeli minority mostly evengelical Christian. If accepted as Israeli citizens the former Palestinains are given one measure of compensation.

2. Israel reserves a right to veto over each any every aplicant, but once accepted are to be considered full and equal Israeli citizens under law, including foreign travel rights and the right to perform Hajj with guarantee of return entry. A bill in the Israeli parliament will need to be passed guaranteeing this right to Israeli Arabs.

3. As 'purchasing' partner the US had the right to offer ctizenship to any of the Palestinians it so wishes (aka a brain drain). any Palestinian who accepts the offer is given one measure of compensation a US passport and full US citizens rights.

4. Anyone denied either of the two options is given a passport to an Arab nation of their choice and two measures of compensation.

5. Any Palestinian refused entry by all Arab states is given token compensation and a host nation is found and given two measures of compensation to house them.

Consequence:
6. Upon conclusion of processing of all Palestinians the occupied territories cease to exist and become defacto and legal component territories of the State of Israel.
This will be ratified in advance by the UN with specific signatory participation of Israel, the Palestinian authority, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.

Note 1. A 'measure of compensation' is set to be generous. Probably on the region of $100k if paid over a period of up to ten years the compensation will not exceed and therefore can replace the munitions support given by the US to Israel.


Logic Chain E/Additional Measures:

1. This will not satisfy everyone, so measure must be taken to ensure a maximum level of compensation.

2. Palestinian prisoners held within Palestinian/Israeli custody can be extradited with a single measure of compensation to a host government who will re-incarcerate them. This accounts for known criminals within the Palestinian legal system and those held by Israel.

3. Israeli Arabs cannot be deported in this way, though Israeli Arabs can forfeit Israeli citizenship and be considered as Palestinians for purposes of repatriation and compensation if they so choose. An Israeli Arab who claims to be a Palestinian and asks to become a citizen of Israel and is accepted does not receive any compensation.

4. Palestinians held within the Israeli penal system for crimes relating to Palestinian/Israeli conflict thet Paslestians consider 'freedom fighters' are to be pardoned and released. They receive appropriate measures of compensation along with any other Palestinian, no less, no more.

5. Any hostage being held by Arab militant groups in Palestine is to be released without delay at the beginging of these procedings.

6. In additon to any measure of compensation any relocated Palestinian/ self exiling Israeli Arab is entitled to the value of any property they are currently residing in at the time of the brokerage of the peace settlement. Previous ownership of land cannot be attributed for purposes of clarity. Land value is to be taken by an average of Israeli land value for land of that purpose and quality (aka location is not taken into consideration) so the fact that the land is bombed should not detract from its potential value is if it were not.

7. No Israeli is to be compensated in this manner, no matter their losses, their corporate compensation is a future of uncontested ownership of the State of Israel. Should it become necessary for any Israeli citizen to be compensated during this process and compensation or benefit due is an internal matter for the Israeli government to be paid for out of internal taxation.

8. Exiled Palestinians are entitled to full measures of compensation in situ, so long as they are first generation exiles born or residing in Palestine. Exiles born abroad are citizens of the countries they now live in and are therefore no longer direct Palestinians. Some more limited compensation may be available to second or third generation Palestinian exiles based on the value of property lost from a fund set up for that purpose, though it will not amount to the same value.

9. Part of the compensation can be offered in land or business services. it is to be encouraged so that recipients build futures rather than squander the money. As a condition of payment this compensation is privileged income and cannot be accounted for means testing or taxation. therefore a relocated person who fails to make a new life for themselves does have their compensation taken away in lieu of welfare payments.

Note 2. This process can be justified Biblically. Abraham accepted that his children would inherit the promised land but never took any land from anybody. Everything was given or paid for. This will be important to reference to Jews and Arabs both.
The critical reference is Genesis 23, the whole chapter relating to Abraham offering to pay for land from the Hittites even as it was given to him. In fact as all other land Abraham used was only given to him in transience the burial plot for his wife Sarah is perhaps unique. It could be implied that Abraham never actually owned any of the promised land without fully paying for it.
This positive Biblical example can be used to flagpole the entire purchase process thus 'completing' what Abraham began.

America has to stop treating Israel like a favoured child, and that's about it.

Israel has commited serious attrocities in the past, like bulldozing villages, rounding up young men and tatooing barcodes on them (sound familiar?) and that's just the softer stuff.

Sure, Israel exists and as such has a right to continue to do so, but it has to stop being such a bully. The blockade of Gaza is dodgy in the extreme, and this latest act to my mind at least is nothing short of piracy, and until an international consensus of 'knock it off arsehead' is reached, peace in the Middle East will never exist.

As for rule number one of Dakka, don't get me wrong. I have no problem at all with the Israeli people at all, but quite a big one with the way their Government is allowed to do whatever it wants, no matter how illegal it might be.

The Israeli government has wide (though not total) popular support from the populace.

That should not be taken as anti-Israeli, just that it needs to be taken into account in any dealings with the government that slackening off against the Palestinians is likely to lose votes.

(Of course, Hamas has pretty wide support from the Palestinian populace.)

sebster wrote:It's a point of interest, most people people tend to think of Palestine as consisting of a uniformly Muslim population. It's as interesting as you want it to be.

Sebster as I'm sure you know, there are certain percentages of Christians in every nation that has an overwhelming nonChristian dominant religion. I really think bringing it up was kind of nonsense.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

No, of course not. Is that really the quality of reasoning, honestly?

'The blockade is keeping these people without the basic supplies needed to live the simplest of lives.'
'Yes, but they're not all good people.'?

Well in your argument you conveniently left out the bad part of Palestinians and focused on the bad part of Israel, which was bad form in my opinion. This goes to the heart of the matter right? Many Americans will back Israel as long as the bad palestinians keep "biting there nose, too spite their face" I will never forget the day 9/11 happened and the media showed all those palestinians celebrating in the streets, yipping and yapping like it was the 4th of July.

I'll also never forget the images of litttle children dressed up in bomb suits before they go blow up a bus or walk into a fruit market and blow it up.

Has Israel been heavy handed at times? Of course they have. And they should be criticized when they do. However there is this loss of context where people forget what the Israelis have had to put up with for so many years.

They are like the little brother that does wrong, but becuase he is your little brother he gets a pass. Oh you may try and discipine him to try and teach him right, but the bottom line he is, your little brother and you will defend him.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

When would you have questioned your commander about being dropped during the night onto a ship full of angry turkish civilians who can see you and are in international waters?

Questioning a commander's orders is not part of a soldier's protocol. Right or wrong, it's a court-martial worthy offense to disobey an order.

Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

Would you refuse it if put into the soldier's shoes?

A basic argument but it holds up. All fine to imagine our higher sense of morality but when put into such a situation I'm sure you don't know how you would act.

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

Would you refuse it if put into the soldier's shoes?

A basic argument but it holds up. All fine to imagine our higher sense of morality but when put into such a situation I'm sure you don't know how you would act.

sA

I wasn't talking about my own actions. I was talking about whether or not the soldiers should be absolved of blame. I can't know what I would have done without being there, but I know that as the person I currently am if I believed that my actions directly led to the deaths of nine civilians I would feel pretty crummy and likely not particularly innocent.

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:It's a point of interest, most people people tend to think of Palestine as consisting of a uniformly Muslim population. It's as interesting as you want it to be.

Sebster as I'm sure you know, there are certain percentages of Christians in every nation that has an overwhelming nonChristian dominant religion. I really think bringing it up was kind of nonsense.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

No, of course not. Is that really the quality of reasoning, honestly?

'The blockade is keeping these people without the basic supplies needed to live the simplest of lives.'
'Yes, but they're not all good people.'?

Well in your argument you conveniently left out the bad part of Palestinians and focused on the bad part of Israel, which was bad form in my opinion. This goes to the heart of the matter right? Many Americans will back Israel as long as the bad palestinians keep "biting there nose, too spite their face" I will never forget the day 9/11 happened and the media showed all those palestinians celebrating in the streets, yipping and yapping like it was the 4th of July.

I'll also never forget the images of litttle children dressed up in bomb suits before they go blow up a bus or walk into a fruit market and blow it up.

Has Israel been heavy handed at times? Of course they have. And they should be criticized when they do. However there is this loss of context where people forget what the Israelis have had to put up with for so many years.

They are like the little brother that does wrong, but becuase he is your little brother he gets a pass. Oh you may try and discipine him to try and teach him right, but the bottom line he is, your little brother and you will defend him.

KK-
I agree it's a legitamate question. Is the support of Israel by America an albatross or gold medal?

Israel would have to do something way beyond the pale of reason to lose the average americans support.

Personally I don't liek to see them resettling lands that were supposed to go to the Palestinians.

I also support a Palestinian state.

GG

Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

Polonius wrote:Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

It's a bit of a loaded statement, sure, but American Jews are overwhelmingly democrat, and overwhelmingly pro-Israel. they're also more politically active and wealthier than many other groups. It's there in the demographics.

It's just like you'll never see a Catholic GOP candidate for president. It's not the way the numbers point.

I support Israel. Not all the time, and not actively, but I think they're in a tough spot, and frankly nobody is going to stop them, help them, stop the Palestinians, or help the Palestinians. It's up to Israel and the Palestinians to sort this out, and Israel has all the power and the Palestinians have a pretty deserved reputation for not negotiating in good faith.

So do the Israelis, to be sure, but a key rule of any negotiation is to always know when you're the weaker party.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

Okay, that picture made my day.

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: I am very sorry to say this, but I am wondering who I am talking to, don't you mean you wish you could been there and iced ten of them. That is soldier talk. The guys I know would have been on that deck and done their job with no fatalities, but then again they were Pongos/Brown Jobs. Yes abseiling onto a ship will be different than being on the streets of Basra outnumbered lots to one and managing to hold the line after being told to use rifle stocks only, but the training remains similar.

Mate, explain to me how they would achieve it?

I don't know, but then I never needed to know. You do though, you see the dangers and posted them in your reply. This is something the CO should know about who of course also should know.

Bottom line if the situation was that poor from the safety of my army chair how about this: Clear a local area of decking with smoke or tear gas. Land some soldiers in the middle of it. Secure a perimeter for landing other soldiers onto the deck. Sounds workable to me and only uses crowd control technology, a non lethal landing. It also means a fair amount of gas due to the helo above and the open deck but what are you looking at , three to five second cover to allow the first soldiers onto the deck. therefore the gas is not fired but is activated but held in the webbing of the first wave of descending soldiers, each soldier has his canister activated from the helo by the soldier following, two or more for the lead guy. No-one then approaches the first soldiers down as they are immersed in a miasma of tear gas. As the gas canisters are held not fired it also absolves the soldiers of being considered to have fired first. Its now only a matter of finding a gas canister or gas canister holder that is safe to be held in webbing and activated while attached to the soldier. All that is then required is a breather unit with independent air supply as from what I have heard close heavy concentrations of gas can force its way through a conventional rebreather.
I doubt any of this is beyond the technical capability of a modern elite army.

Can I assume once you have four or five soldiers in and the LZ cleared they can handle the rest of the drop without further use of gas?

mattyrm wrote:
But fast roping into a mob one at a time?!
Not going to happen.

So what you are saying is that the MO was land anyway, and resort to firepower.
Can it reasonably be assumed that having Israeli commandos on the deck would not provoke anger. I really doubt that, they knew it would kick someone off, its human nature.

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: This is where we differ, if I may be bold to suggest I think your memory from service in the Middle East is soiling your judgement here. I am wondering if you have crossed the line into thinking the only good Arab is a dead one.

Mate, how many times have i said this? Ive had everyone trying to paint me as the bad guy when i openly admit it and have done several times!

I wanted to be careful how I replied to you, after all I am a Ponti and not had to face what you have. I think you realise that I am not judging you because I know that you will have seen a side to this problem most others have not. Its all too easy for me to have symapthy for people who are in some way connected to other similar people who haver done their best to end your life and those of your friends.
If anyone has been PMing you messages shame on them. Do a tour first, then point the finger. I haven't, so I wont.

mattyrm wrote:
My middle east tours HAVE soiled my judgement and ive admitted it several times. I never once crossed a line when i was serving, as my commitment to professionalism outweighed my own desire to open a can of whup ass on some of the dirtbags we tagged and sent off to their pleasant cells to get a cold bottle of water and a hot meal.

That is a soldier talking. A very good friend of mine who I will not name explained it all and explained why the British soldier is held in especially high regard. Not only do you have the training other western armed forces have you have an elan few others can match. If put under pressure your first allegiance is to your section yes and the man beside you, same as soldiers the world over, but you also have a regiment with a history to be proud of above and beyond what just about anyone else can claim, if you cross the line you can bring shame on your regiment and so you do not. Beyond that is the privilege of being a soldier in Her Majesty's armed forces, and while that sounds jingoistic to most Pontis, some do understand. The Queen is not like any politician or tribal leader, no mere president, warlord or party chief, she is something more, a titular leader who is worthy of personal allegiance, and someone who you really don't want to let down. This can and does make all the difference.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, at the start of the tour we were shooting them, dropping mortars onto them, the occasional milan etc... because there was no civilian towns for several kilometers, and it was obvious they werent digging for carrots. But this was deemed to be too aggressive. So we started doing "warning shots" and at first they would run off, but they would come back shortly after. A few weeks of this, and they were fearless, and funny thing mines started appearing everywhere. I spoke to my Boss about it, i said "does someone have to die before they let us do what we need to?" and he said "yeah yeah Matty i know the score but our hands are tied"

Thats our politicians for you and Blair and Brown are the worst of the lot. They want this that and the other but they want it done the PC dogma way. What has PC dogma got to do with operations in a military theatre?
I will say this for the Israelis, they don't hang up their own soldiers to dry like our lot do.

mattyrm wrote:
I was involved in at least 100 close range firefights, it got worse every year i went, i was well trained, i dont have nightmares, PTSD, cold sweats or depression, but sure, i hate Muslims. Ive never denied it, and i fully accept i would be a better person if i didnt. But i do, and i probably always will.

Do talk to SSAFA if you need to. Please be careful you don't give anyone the opportunity to call you 'racist' because that gak will stick and they wont look at your mitigating circumstances. You know the type.

mattyrm wrote:
If you want to chastise me further, do it via PM so i dont have to hijack this thread with my life story, im currently getting plenty of judgemental PMs, so i should be able to just cut and paste you a reply in no time at all!

Come on now. You really think I would piss on a veteran?

mattyrm wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

Thanks for that, my thoughts exactly.

mattyrm wrote:Never would have let it happen on my watch, and i dont know any soldiers who would have turned a blind eye to crimes, young British men didnt seem to have much of an interest or bias either way when i was there, you tend to think the whole lot of them are being ridiculous, but now your just derailing the thread even further and your post was pointless.

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

See, we can all do it.

1)No one ever claims to have let it happen, yet it still does.

2)Their of course is a bias. One side is supportive of your presence.

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Now the point goes along with the current derail in that demonizing your opponent is not a path to peace.

4)Pro IRA no, Pro NRA, Yes......Seriously I'm for equal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, many Brits have doggedly maintained the false claim that there has never been a bias in how the Irish have been treated. They even go so far as to deny that protestants have ever contributed to the problem through instigation.

On-topic- Until we can get both sides to stop demonizing the other, nothing dealing with Israeli/Palestinian relations will change.

Orlanth wrote:

Bottom line if the situation was that poor from the safety of my army chair how about this: Clear a local area of decking with smoke or tear gas. Land some soldiers in the middle of it. Secure a perimeter for landing other soldiers onto the deck. Sounds workable to me and only uses crowd control technology, a non lethal landing. It also means a fair amount of gas due to the helo above and the open deck but what are you looking at , three to five second cover to allow the first soldiers onto the deck. therefore the gas is not fired but is activated but held in the webbing of the first wave of descending soldiers, each soldier has his canister activated from the helo by the soldier following, two or more for the lead guy. No-one then approaches the first soldiers down as they are immersed in a miasma of tear gas. As the gas canisters are held not fired it also absolves the soldiers of being considered to have fired first. Its now only a matter of finding a gas canister or gas canister holder that is safe to be held in webbing and activated while attached to the soldier. All that is then required is a breather unit with independent air supply as from what I have heard close heavy concentrations of gas can force its way through a conventional rebreather.

I doubt any of this is beyond the technical capability of a modern elite army.

Can I assume once you have four or five soldiers in and the LZ cleared they can handle the rest of the drop without further use of gas?

Not unreasonable, but were hijacking the thread here, as i said, you shouldnt fastrope onto a deck with hostiles on without the element of suprise, they would have been able to see before they jumped that they werent going to be able to get down there with no issues. Going up to the boat mob handed on a few MIBs and RIBs and plenty of crowd control gear would have been infinately preferable to attempting to fastrping onto the deck.

All i can presume is that the OC thought that the threat of force would be enough to cow the protestors, i wouldnt have made that mistake as i know how strongly they feel if they are willing to leave the safety of their respective nations to break the blockade, and that they WANT there to be an incident. Maybe not get killed, but they want it to happen, they want publicity, they want to make the IDF out to be the bad guys.

But its easy with hindsight to say what we would do. All we can say is that it was a clusterfeth and a staggeringly bad operational decision. The rest is history..

Orlanth--Matty--FocusedFire----Please take your IRA-NRA-Relief boat discussion to PM or to another thread.

Thank you,

GG

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

Albatross wrote:

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

What about the members of the IRA that didn't kill anyone?

:edit: crap, didn't catch the edit.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

What about the members of the IRA that didn't kill anyone?

:edit: crap, didn't catch the edit.

PM sent.

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth--Matty--FocusedFire----Please take your IRA-NRA-Relief boat discussion to PM or to another thread.

Thank you,

GG

The Troubles, and Afghanistan, was relevant as a comparitive example in how military policing is can be achieved.
Focused fire misread my comments to think I assumed all Irish were 'scum', they aren't, but I still consider all IRA terrorists as 'scum'. But that is another topic for another time.

Relief boat? If you are refering to how to get onto a crowded unfriendly ship you want to seize without killing people or minimise risk of killing people, that is very relevant to the discussion.
Establishing whether certain recent actions resulted in 'inevitable' casualties accounts for the level of culpability regarding those actions and at what level of ethics they can be defended.

Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.