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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Can't resist.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/07/breaking-helen-thomas-has-retired-hearst-announces/?fbid=UZ7VCLYMU-u&hpt=T2

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/07/israeli-navy-fires-palestinian-divers-gaza-medics-say-killed/

Evidently the British have been known to blockade in international waters as well.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1096.html

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.

Your point?

sA

Frazzie that was World War One.

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.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177749

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 post frazz http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36488_Did_Reuters_Crop_a_Photo_to_Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon

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."

This debate is so very, very strange.

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.

basic spices are not allowed

This is sorta funny, right?

"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.

Phryxis wrote:This is sorta funny, right?

"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.

Yep.

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...

Again, what IED?

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.

Phew... I was scared for a minute there.

language warnings on the clip folks !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiXG0p3N6g&NR=1

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.

Honestly, I don't trust information from either side as there is to much incentive to skew, spin, or fabricate information.

And look fabulous doing it!

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.

sA

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?

This situation, matey, this situation.

Israel should get out of Gaza, Israel's actions in this case, on the flotilla boarding, were not necessarily all that terrible.

sA