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.

smiling Assassin wrote: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

Does their reasoning for engaging in the operation in the first place not hold relevance to their 'correctness' given the situation?

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.

sA

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.

Phryxis wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

Phryxis wrote:Why do you insist on employing such obviously loaded language?

meanwhile cropped photos become a major issue in the Zionist press.

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.

And if he was shot in the legs first, and was thus incapacitated, why then shoot him in the head?

Let me show you something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zy37-_0LU

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.

Phryxis, you nailed it right on the head.

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.

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.

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.

Phryxis wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

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'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

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Or the BGs were caught in a cross fire from two shooters.

or, as noted, they were egging others on when they were shot.

Or there heads were just turned away and part of the mob when the Sigs (I'd bet they had Sigs) were emptied. Its what I would have done.

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.

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

filbert wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.

However, orly you have no proof that downed opponents were in fact "shot."

Orlanth wrote:

filbert wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.