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

Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.

We also have eyewitnesses who claim to have seen victims being shot on the ground. The pattern of wounds supports this.

I cannot reemember where I read this but the MO for IDF special forces with side arms is to approach the target rapidly shooting while decreasing range then finishing of with a bullet to back to head. The odd thing was that this was an assassination rather than a policing technique. Personally I think the commando got carried away and applied his 'finishing move' to the activist during a struggle. I honestly think it was an error and assassination rather than policing training kicked in under the stress.

However this could have been avoided very easily. First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident, rhetoric from before and after strongly indicates that it was not seen as such. If your soldiers are encouraged to think 'terrorist' they are likely to apply combat rather than policing training. The soldier inteviewed gave no-one any doubt that in his eyes the opponents were active combatants not civilian miscreants, also a large measure of contempt can also be detected from the interview. Dehumanising ones opponent is a common technique, but it is supposed to be applied only to enemy armed combatants and their policitcal leaders, it is very unhealthy to apply this technique when refering to opposed civilians, so as to prevent such trajedies as we have seen.

Orlanth wrote:

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

Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.

We also have eyewitnesses who claim to have seen victims being shot on the ground. The pattern of wounds supports this.

I cannot reemember where I red this but the MO for IDF special forces with side arms is to approach the target rapidly shooting while decreasing range then finishing of with a bullet to back to head. The odd thing was that this was an assassination rather than a policing technique. Personally I think the commando got carried away and applied his 'finishing move' to the activist during a struggle. I honestly think it was an error and assassination rather than policing training kicked in under the stress.

Hoever this could have been avoided very easily. First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident, rhetoric indicates that it was not seen as such. if your sopldiers are encouraged to think 'terrorist' they are likely to combat rather than policing training.

A lot of the time, the shot to the back of the head is delivered after the victim is already dead. It's not necessarily to 'finish them off' it's more to make doubly sure they don't pose any threat anymore. I would humbly suggest that a lot of the shots to the backs of heads are postmortem.

filbert wrote:

A lot of the time, the shot to the back of the head is delivered after the victim is already dead. It's not necessarily to 'finish them off' it's more to make doubly sure they don't pose any threat anymore. I would humbly suggest that a lot of the shots to the backs of heads are postmortem.

Again you seem to be agreeing with me phrased as disagreeing. Let me ask you this, what if the person you finish off was still alive, which I suppose is the point of the extra bullet. Let us look at this as a logic chain.


1. This is a policing incident.
2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
4. Why finish him off?
a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
b) or he is dead.

In either case the extra bullet is not acceptable outcome for the incident. In fact even if this was an actual war not a policing incident and the targets were a known enemy with guns its not even acceptible under the Hague conventions. Captured opponents and civilians are entitled to medical assistance as required from the controlling forces.

Those same eyewitnesses are the people who claim that they did nothing to provoke the Israelis to open fire with the Pepperball guns--after having grabbed the ropes and tried to shake them off, throwing an IDF member from the upper deck down 13-14 feet to the next deck, etc.

Orlanth - I am not going to get drawn into an argument over whether the Israelis saw this as a military or a policing matter, suffice it to say that as I mentioned earlier, it is all to easy to sit and pass judgement, especially when most of us have never discharged a weapon in anger. In terms of firing at someone who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a threat, then the soldier is trained to aim at the body mass. This is difficult to do at the best of times, let alone on a ship at sea, in the midst of a melee and in charged, emotional situations. It would appear, in my considered opinion, that the shots to the back of the head are largely postmortem and as a result of the soldiers reacting aggressively to make sure their targets are neutralized. Whether that is due to emotion, training or specific orders is neither here nor there.

Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

Just because we have strict gun control laws doesnt proclude understanding in firearm use.

Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?

I can repeat myself again, if it helps.

If you're going to evade this question, please just say "evade" so we can move on.

I cannot see his anus either, but thats doesnt mean he no longer has one.

Glad to see your standard of debate has descended to yet more pitiful levels.

You can blow this point off, but it doesn't help your argument any. That commando had a gun when he landed on the boat. He doesn't in the picture. Where is it?

Let's not try to cover so much ground with each post. Let's narrow it down so we don't get lost.

Let's focus on the picture of the commando on the deck. He's got no gun. Where do YOU think his gun went?

First by ensuring that the blockade was handled as a policing incident

Paintball guns are not combat weapons. They're non-lethal crowd control devices used in POLICE OPERATIONS. Jesus...

Ignore this. Focus on the questions above. I just HAD to respond because some things are too stupid to go uncommented upon. But, yeah, ignore this.

Orlanth wrote:

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

Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.

Five shots is nothing. At point blank range, as in shooting the guy hitting you with a pipe five rounds is one second of shooting. One shot is Hollywood. I don't know Israeli special forces, but the cops and rangers that taught me to shoot in Cali taught to put multiple rounds into any target you're shooting at-shoot until they go down. Five into them as they are moving and then turning is completely realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Those same eyewitnesses are the people who claim that they did nothing to provoke the Israelis to open fire with the Pepperball guns--after having grabbed the ropes and tried to shake them off, throwing an IDF member from the upper deck down 13-14 feet to the next deck, etc.

Yep

1. This is a policing incident.
***No. It’s a military blockade to keep enemy forces from obtaining weapons to kill Israeli civilians with. vessels that don't heave to are historically blown out of the water. the israelis were stupidly trying to not antagonize the situation. Wrong move.

2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
***No. Its ethical to enforce the blockade (ask the British). Its ethical to kill your enemy. Its ethical to kill the guys trying to kill you.

3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
***No proof of that.

4. Why finish him off?
***No proof that occurred. If it were me I’d have sunk the ship. The riot is prima facae proof they have weapons hidden on board. Ships trying to run a blockade are historically sunk. Time honored British, US, German, etc etc tradition.

a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
***No you stop the immediate threat. Special forces “stopping the threat” usually means the threat is dead before there is time for medical attention. That’s strictly tertiary. Complete the mission. Protect Your Team. Protect Yourself. Give a *&*^ about the guy you just put down-way down the priority list.

b) or he is dead.
***yep

Phryxis wrote:Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

Just because we have strict gun control laws doesnt proclude understanding in firearm use.

Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?

YES I HAVE!
Colt python, browning 9mm, colt 45 1911 pattern. I've also fired a SLR 7.62, thats .308 winchester to you.
I can still strip a LMG with my eyes shut British troops are trained that way
We don't have to modify our main weapon to fire three round bursts, because our troops are too dumb to learn trigger control.

But then again spray and pray as allways been the american way.

filbert wrote:

So why bring this up at all?

WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.

filbert wrote:
You already mention that talk of police and snipers is irrelevant; are you trying to suggest that the Israeli forces should have attempted to 'shoot to disable' as you put it? If so, you are wrong, simple as that.

I was not.

Phryxis wrote:Thank god some other people have joined in on trying to introduce Orlanth to reality. For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

Less trolling please.

Phryxis wrote:
Nice evasion. I'll repeat myself. Have you ever even TOUCHED a handgun?

Yes. Not that thats relevant, or in my country even legal anymore.
You have permission to assume I havent if it makes you feel I have less right to comment. It would not be the case.

Phryxis wrote:
You can blow this point off, but it doesn't help your argument any. That commando had a gun when he landed on the boat. He doesn't in the picture. Where is it?

In the sea perhaps, behind his back, in the hands of a colleague. Plenty of options that do not indicate it was in the hands of a 'murderous mercenary'.

Phryxis wrote:
Paintball guns are not combat weapons. They're non-lethal crowd control devices used in POLICE OPERATIONS. Jesus...

Paintball guns? what are you talking about? need more crazy pills?

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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

Indeed. But unless the vctim highlighted, Fulkan Dogan, was a termintor being shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back would have put him down without needing to swap sides to apply bullets both front and back.

Five shots is nothing. At point blank range, as in shooting the guy hitting you with a pipe five rounds is one second of shooting. One shot is Hollywood. I don't know Israeli special forces, but the cops and rangers that taught me to shoot in Cali taught to put multiple rounds into any target you're shooting at-shoot until they go down. Five into them as they are moving and then turning is completely realistic.

OK first, we have have no knowledge that this guy was carrying a pipe. Second, in one salvo you are going to shoot him three times in the front turn him over and shoot him twice more? We will allow you more than one second for this if you like. I dont buy the grouping of wounds unless some of the shorts were finishing moves. Allowing for what the commandoes were facing this was unacceptable, these are activists, shot to the ground then finished off. High powered rounds might spin a body, I will give you that, but we dont know what he was shot with, a side arm by all accounts which makes it dubious that the body would have been spun enough by five shots front and back in a single short salvo.

You are still thinking combat rather than policing in either case. Please provide your evidence to indicate that Mr Dogan was an armed threat and justified shooting in this manner.

loki old fart wrote:
This is the conclusion of the autopsy conducted by the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine, which also did autopsies on the eight other Turkish citizens killed in the Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara ferry and five other smaller boats in the so-called Freedom Flotilla. Of the other eight dead, the medical examiners found that five had been shot in the back, or in the back of the head.

I have not read this but if true that cetainly raises fair suspicion is that activists were finished off corroborating eyewitness accounts.

Finishing off downed or captured opponents is MURDER. The Hague and Geneva conventions etc have provision to protect casualties in such cases.

loki old fart wrote:

But then again spray and pray as allways been the american way.

Incorrect. Swift blinding firepower way out of proportion is the American way.

Orlanth, get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.

You've, I assumed, watched the video at least once, right?
Notice the "menacing rifles" carried by the Israelis. They have a hopper on the top.

They're paintball guns loaded with a crowd control ammo called "Pepperball".

Do you have a reference for the Hague convention article that you cite? Yes, combatants (for want of a better term) are afforded certain rights under capture but there are very few laws regarding 'how' to shoot someone deemed a threat, beyond the prohibition of certain weapons.

Edit: Also, I think this thread is counter-productive so I am not going to post in it any more. This is going to end up the same way as the other 2 or 3 threads on the subject. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with people not being able to control their emotions.

Orlanth wrote:[You are still thinking combat rather than policing in either case. Please provide your evidence to indicate that Mr Dogan was an armed threat and justified shooting in this manner.

Provide proof he wasn't. we have pics of israeli troops down, surrounded by guys with knives.

Again this is no police action. Thats nonsense, complete utter nonsense. This is a miltary blockade. they didn't heave to. By military tradition the ship should be crab condoes.

Orlanth wrote:

filbert wrote:

So why bring this up at all?

WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.

Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.

Frazzled wrote:
1. This is a policing incident.
***No. It’s a military blockade to keep enemy forces from obtaining weapons to kill Israeli civilians with. vessels that don't heave to are historically blown out of the water. the israelis were stupidly trying to not antagonize the situation. Wrong move.

So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.

Frazzled wrote:
2. The ethical policy would be to secutre control with minimal use of force.
***No. Its ethical to enforce the blockade (ask the British). Its ethical to kill your enemy. Its ethical to kill the guys trying to kill you.

The British normally Blockaded by different means.

Frazzled wrote:
3. A target is on the ground wounded and still. Why we will leave out for now.
***No proof of that.

Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.

Frazzled wrote:
4. Why finish him off?
***No proof that occurred. If it were me I’d have sunk the ship. The riot is prima facae proof they have weapons hidden on board. Ships trying to run a blockade are historically sunk. Time honored British, US, German, etc etc tradition.

If you would have sunk the ship perhaps you are twisted. I am talking about reactions for hopefully more level headed people.
There was no riot, riots are premeditated. Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
Ships are sunk in blokcades if there is no other means of stippiong them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
Assymetric submarine warfare is not a good comparitive example for modern policy and there is a world (war) of difference between a Uboat campaign/allied blockade and stopping international aid convoys.

Frazzled wrote:
a) he is either alive and thus should be given medical attention and if needs be placed under arrested.
***No you stop the immediate threat. Special forces “stopping the threat” usually means the threat is dead before there is time for medical attention. That’s strictly tertiary. Complete the mission. Protect Your Team. Protect Yourself. Give a *&*^ about the guy you just put down-way down the priority list.

I agree. however this also means not handing out finishing shots and handling your objectives in the order you mentioned. It is not illegal to prioritise your own wounded over the enemy. It is illegal to intentionally delay or deny medical attention to a downed opponent. That's international law by the way, Frazzie opinions dont really matter on the subject.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

filbert wrote:

So why bring this up at all?

WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.

Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.

I have to repeat myself because you fail to understand. Let me point it out.

Military law 101

Shot A. Target active, shooting at target aiming to kill as a means of stopping target.
Shot B. Target inactive, shooting to guarantee a kill (normally by closing and shooting at short range).

Shot A. is different from Shot B. because point A can result in a miss, an enabled wounded opponent, a disabled wounded opponent or a dead opponent. If the target is still active you can fire again as Shot A. If the target is dead you have achieved your objective of stopping the target by killing him. If you have a disabled wounded opponent and you intended to shoot to negate an enemy your objective is accomplished, if you intended to purposefully kill the enemy you might procede to point B though this is illegal. This is why there are such things as military laws to protect wounded prisoners.
Shot A is NOT followed by Shot B if the intent is to stop the target and the target is disabled.

Thwe two types of shot are NOT legally the same. Its lawful to shoot to kill only under certain circumstances, those circumstances change if the target is disabled in the combat. So the first shots might be Shot A, a follow on shot an illegal shot B.

In law this is taken to mean that you shoot 'as if to kill', but actually in order to eliminate an opponent as an effective fighter. A 'shot A' can be intended for a clean kill quite legally, intent to kill is not illegal but only while the opponent is active. See the distinction now.

I will not go further into military uses of deliberate wounding, but on reflection there are many reasons why you might not want to actually shoot to kill your opponent. This is a known tactical ploy for various reasons, including drawing out medics or causing combat resource problems, plus a number of cases of individuals in the military who do not want to take life, but we can count the latter out from this discussion.

I hate that you quote I quote-I can never get it to work. Bear with me.
So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.
****They were running a blockade. What they ran with was irrelevant. They were trying to run. The Israelis didn’t know what they had. The Israelis offered to take them into port and they replied with Auschwitz comments. If I were navy Commander Frazzled torpedoes would have been in the water the moment Auschwitz was mentioned.

The British normally Blockaded by different means.
***Tell that to the Germans, the Japans, the French, and the US. We had our second war over that.

Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.
***Other witnesses say no. Your witnesses claimed they were peaceful. Clearly not the case. Everyone’s biased in this adventure and your witnesses have links to terrorists organizations-why are they even breathing?


If you would have sunk the ship perhaps you are twisted. I am talking about reactions for hopefully more level headed people.
***Its standard practice. That’s what a blockade is. The US was within minutes of a nuke war over a blockade. Lets get real here.

There was no riot, riots are premeditated.
***Wait, what? Really? All those soccer riots were premediated? But lets take you t your word-they were premediated. All the more reason to blow them away.
Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
***facepalm. Running a blockade to interdict weapons. Whether they had them or not is irrelevant. The blockade was put in place to keep rockets from Iran getting to Hamas to launch to kill Israelis. Its working. Its sucks to be Gazans but then again they voted in a terrorist organization.

Ships are sunk in blokcades if there is no other means of stippiong them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
***Ships are sunk if they don’t stop. If they resist they get what they get.

What eyewitness evidence?


This is the same eyewitness evidence that stated they didn't throw a commando off the upper deck, that stated they didn't seize that commando's gun and start brandishing it around, that stated they didn't try to shake the commandos off the ropes, right?

Yeah, that's some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal reliable evidence there.

So far theres no proof that there was only one shooter.

Its possible that those shot in the back of the head were victims of 'freindly' fire.

It was also on a dark ship, amidst alot of chaos and a messy melee. I the dark you cant tell if people are facing towards or away- its likely they jsut knew they were getting hit and fired at silhouettes.

You could have put the best crime scene people on the planet on that boat 5 minutes after this happened and they probly could not sort it out.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

filbert wrote:

So why bring this up at all?

WARBOSS TZOO attempted to silence the comment that the coup de gras shots occured by claiming that all shots were fired at people were fired under an identical motivation to shoot to kill. This argument is fallacious and the fact that shoot to disable is sometimes used debunks his argument. Hence the reply. This is in addition to the fact that there is a distinction between a finishing shot and shooting to take down an opponent.

Uh, no. I attempted to do no such thing. What I was addressing was your (repeatedly) stating that there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to protect oneself or to stop the threat. Any trained user of firearms knows that these are exactly the same thing.

Not really, there's a fairly significant difference between two in the chest and one in the head and one in the chest. Functionally one protects themselves with a firearm by inflicting considerable bodily harm on others by shooting at them, but proportionality is paramount in differentiating the use of firearms in a crowd control effort and their use in military offensives wherein the objective is to kill people. Soldiers aren't often trained in the differentiation though, thats more of a realm of police training and soldiers are typically trained to react quite aggressively in adverse situations.

Frazzled wrote:I hate that you quote I quote-I can never get it to work. Bear with me.

ok

Frazzled wrote:
So they were attemtping to run the blockade with wheelchairs, pencils for schools and food. Weapons in Frazzieland. I am sure if the ships were loaded with weaponsd they would have been shown. Afrter all they showed the kitchen knives. Funnily enough on a laerge ship a kitchen would have kitchen knives.
****They were running a blockade. What they ran with was irrelevant. They were trying to run. The Israelis didn’t know what they had. The Israelis offered to take them into port and they replied with Auschwitz comments. If I were navy Commander Frazzled torpedoes would have been in the water the moment Auschwitz was mentioned.

So the answer is to board in a controled manner. We discussed this on another thread. even most Israeli apologists admit the operation was fethed up. Also the subsequent boarding of the Rachel Corrie tok place without a hitch. there were lessons on both sides. but the end result is tyat there are ways of handleing this sort of operation.

Frazzled wrote:
The British normally Blockaded by different means.
***Tell that to the Germans, the Japans, the French, and the US. We had our second war over that.

I think we can ignore the morality of any blockade from the age of sail or in fact up to 20th century. Things were different then. It was still quite normal to think differently then, we have all moved on.

Frazzled wrote:
Eye witness evidence corroberated by the pattern of the wounds. There was far more proof of that than any 'proof' they were and enemy that required killing.
***Other witnesses say no. Your witnesses claimed they were peaceful. Clearly not the case. Everyone’s biased in this adventure and your witnesses have links to terrorists organizations-why are they even breathing?

They arent 'my' witnesses, I am not an Arabist but a humanitarian.
Yes everyone has a bias.
the witnesses invloved many people from many nations, some arabists others just humanitarians. The link to terrorism you talk about involved the fact that some terrorists supported the particular aid agency ten years previously. Its quite reasonable to suggest that the aid agency did not know who they were being supported by, then let alone now.
If you has a rattle tin for a charity and a man who happeneed to be a terrorist placed a dime in your tin and walked away should you be shot for your terror connection?
Sorry thats too tenuous a connection to be relevant.

Frazzled wrote:
***Its standard practice. That’s what a blockade is. The US was within minutes of a nuke war over a blockade. Lets get real here.

Yers in getting real this was about sending nukes to Cuba, a genuine flashpoint. Big difference. I suppose the A-Team might be able to put together weapons from the supplies shipped: chicken powered, spice tipped pencil launching, wheelchairs sound dangerous. That ought to have the Israelis trembling with fear.

Frazzled wrote:
There was no riot, riots are premeditated.
***Wait, what? Really? All those soccer riots were premediated? But lets take you t your word-they were premediated. All the more reason to blow them away.

No thats why in a football riot you change the persons who hit people with assault and theose who organised the riot with offences related to rioting. Riot is an odd word, much misused, here in the UK you have to be read the Riot Act, which is very rarely done. Legally if the Riot Act is read out and rioters do not disperse the police can shoot into the crowd. Note this legislation while not used for centuries at a time has deliberately never been repealed.
What we usually call rioting is rioting by the press standard of the word.
In any case you charge the ringleaders with 'rioting' and the crowd with whatever they actually did. Football 'firms' (gangs attached to team fans) are high priority targets for police intelligence. Yes what they do is premeditated, even if the crowd is not.

Frazzled wrote:
Also as there were no weapons hidden aboard, and we all know they would have been documented for the press if found, its safe to say you are talking bollocks.
***facepalm. Running a blockade to interdict weapons. Whether they had them or not is irrelevant. The blockade was put in place to keep rockets from Iran getting to Hamas to launch to kill Israelis. Its working. Its sucks to be Gazans but then again they voted in a terrorist organization.

If they voted someone else there would still be firing rockets. If they stopped firing rockets they would still be under occupation and oppression, and enough are so angry its unlikely they will be able to stop. Too many relatives dead you see. That's why it sucks to be Gazan.

Frazzled wrote:
Ships are sunk in blokades if there is no other means of stopping them and there is a good chance they are carrying armaments. You are wrong on both accounts.
***Ships are sunk if they don’t stop. If they resist they get what they get.

Only in an active war. Israel is not at war with Turkey.

Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women, said the Israelis used rubber bullets, sound bombs and tasers against them.

"Two women were hooded, they had their eyes taped," she said, describing how the yacht was quickly overwhelmed. "We stood and tried to obstruct the armed, masked men and maintained no other defence and still they used violence."

Harrison, 32, from Islington, north London, also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.

"I have seen some selective footage that the Israelis have chosen to put out suggesting that we responded with violence," she said. "You must remember that these are unarmed civilians on their own boat in the middle of the Mediterranean. People picked up what they could to defend themselves against armed, masked commandos who were shooting."

He's the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-attack-autopsy-results

Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.

So what?

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.

So what?

Who are you responding too here?

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.

So what?

Which part didn't you understand?

also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.

So what?

Which part didn't you understand?

also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.

What were they firing at?

loki old fart wrote:Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women

Wait, we finally have a point to this thread. How do you get this kind of gig? Its too late for my but my boy knows how to sail.

Frazzled wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Alex Harrison, a Free Gaza activist who was on the smaller Challenger yacht, which was crewed mainly by women

Wait, we finally have a point to this thread. How do you get this kind of gig? Its too late for my but my boy knows how to sail.

I don't think that you want to have your spring break end by being apprehended by israeli commandos.

@frazz Your too old

ShumaGorath wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, so they used nonlethal commonly accepted crowd control methods to subdue people.

So what?

Which part didn't you understand?

also witnessed the Mavi Marmara being stormed from above by helicopter and said the Israelis started firing before their troops touched down on the boat.

What were they firing at?

Further what were they firing? paintball guns look and sound a lot like carbines.

Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth, get your facts straight before talking out of your ass.

You've, I assumed, watched the video at least once, right?
Notice the "menacing rifles" carried by the Israelis. They have a hopper on the top.

They're paintball guns loaded with a crowd control ammo called "Pepperball".

We can assume this is not what was used to shoot the activists who died. The soldiers drew their pistols and opened fire with them at short range.

I really do not beleive the activists was paintballed to death.
I find the other equipment they were carrying as not really relevant, they could have been carrying inflatable sheep. It doesnt matter, that matters is that the drop was mishandled, commandoes dropped too close to panicy frightened and angry people without warning and as a result of the scuffle that ensued nine activists were killed by gunshot wounds and several others wounded.

What else is relevant is that some of the sctivists who suffered fatal injuries showed wounds that indicated that they were finished off.