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.

loki old fart wrote:a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset who was aboard the Mavi Marmara, is now under armed protection after nearly 500 people signed up to a Facebook page calling for her execution.

500 People on Facebook? OMG ARE YOU SERIOUS? That is almost a third of a mid-west Jr High Cheerleaders friend list.

This article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If she was a member why did they bring someone that hates them so much? Why would they tell her that they were just there to terrorize and kill people? What were the instructions they asked her to shout? If it was to tell them to put the pipes and knifes down or we'll shoot it seems a little silly to respond in such a way. This article is about as trustworthy as Shuma after a few Appletini's.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.

Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.

Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?

Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.

The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?

I think you need to reread my post and try not to put words in my mouth. Try taking my sentences for how they are actually stated. I stated that panic psychologically can lead to aggressive mob mentality and violence in enclosed spaces. This is the truth. It has been proven time and time again in both studies and in real world observations. Secondly I said that they were willing to have a fight but that they were ill prepared for one. You don't defend a boat with pipes. Even if you manage by some miracle to bludgeon the raiding military force the helicopter still has a gun and the boats the helicopter came from probably has even bigger guns. It's foolish and it's exceedingly unlikely they had planned to attempt an armed attack on israel under the guise of an aid ship by using metal pipes. Also they probably pulled the pipes from the hold where they were transporting construction materials as aid.

I never said anything about it being a bloodthirsty raid, and I never spoke of the other boats. Also the IDF has yet to be confirmed as being real and it's 'reveal' is pretty suspicious as is.

Dancing with semantics again- gotcha. And there are other people posting in this thread- other boats were there and have been mentioned several times.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

There fixed it

Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Panicking people dont attack in coordinated melee tactics- they run and hide.

Thats the flight half of fight or flight, and it's a difficult half to perform on a ship where there isn't much room to run. It also ignores the impact of superior numbers and mob mentality when faced with adverse and violent circumstances in an enclosed space. The psychology of the situation is fairly apparent in the videos and in the situation itself. They were ill prepared for a fight (given their lack of weapons), but they were seemingly willing to have one (given the initiation of hostilities as the first commando landed). The video doesn't tell particularly much beyond the instigation of hostilities in that particular instance, it most certainly cuts out at a rather odd time.

Have you ever had to use crowd control tactics on an angry mob? Any real training or experience in that field, or are you just talking out of some book or belief you know about this stuff?

Ill prepared in that they didnt have guns- true- but they didnt pull those 3 foot metal pipes out of their asses.

The people on the other boats werent harmed- and they didnt attack the boarders- if this was the bloodthirsty raid some are making it out to be- wouldnt the IDF have killed everyone so there werent any pesky witnesses?

I think you need to reread my post and try not to put words in my mouth. Try taking my sentences for how they are actually stated. I stated that panic psychologically can lead to aggressive mob mentality and violence in enclosed spaces. This is the truth. It has been proven time and time again in both studies and in real world observations. Secondly I said that they were willing to have a fight but that they were ill prepared for one. You don't defend a boat with pipes. Even if you manage by some miracle to bludgeon the raiding military force the helicopter still has a gun and the boats the helicopter came from probably has even bigger guns. It's foolish and it's exceedingly unlikely they had planned to attempt an armed attack on israel under the guise of an aid ship by using metal pipes. Also they probably pulled the pipes from the hold where they were transporting construction materials as aid.

I never said anything about it being a bloodthirsty raid, and I never spoke of the other boats. Also the IDF has yet to be confirmed as being real and it's 'reveal' is pretty suspicious as is.

Dancing with semantics again- gotcha. And there are other people posting in this thread- other boats were there and have been mentioned several times.

I'm not dancing with semantics and it's tiring to hear you use that in defense of your trollish posting behavior in regards to my sentiments every time you manage to intentionally misquote me. You seem capable of interacting with others normally, why is that so difficult for you here? I don't particularly care about the other boats, I wasn't speaking on the other ones. Their existence is irrelevant to what I posted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?

On open waters the national law of the registered nationalities of the boats and passengers are paramount so long as their actions don't violate international law. Israel had a thin and fairly conflicting blockade law set that it is using to justify it's actions and the aid workers are using the gray legal status of Israels blockade and pure righteousness to justify their own actions. Technically both sides are breaking national and international laws, but what actually occurred is still gray enough for conflicting levels of legality to be argued. Also people don't often understand international maritime law as a rule of thumb.

loki old fart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

There fixed it

Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

He heard your boat was the one going to Trinidad with the ladies?

Ahtman wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

There fixed it

Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.

You = troll = fail
stick to 40k you might know something about that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

He heard your boat was the one going to Trinidad with the ladies?

I'd fast rope onto that myself

loki old fart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

There fixed it

Some call it fastroping, others call it falling out of a helicopter after getting a hold of Shuma's appletinis...

Kanluwen wrote:
Panicy and frightened don't sound like anything relevant, considering that these people were grabbing the rope as the first commando came down and shake him off of it.

We are seeing a pattern of mitigating circumstances. If it is true that the activists were already 'under fire' from a helicopter. Civilians in the dark being shot at, they can be forgiven for not knowing or understanding what they were shot at with. Its a quite understandable that if the guys in the hlicopters are shooting activists 'at random' the commandoes might also do the same if they reach the deck. So trying to shake them off, sounds reasonable.

Kanluwen wrote:
That same guy had his pistol taken when he was on the ground after being clubbed by people waiting at the bottom of the rope with piping. The protesters even admitted as much that they got some of the pistols off the Israelis and started brandishing them around.

Yes this now corroborates with that the commando who killed six activists says. He did quite a bit before opening fire and slaughtering those people. Let us see what he claimed to do:

He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.
The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three.

Even if we accept his version of events as true, I am highly sceptical due to his claims later in the article about what the activists were supposedly equiped with, he still did well to establish two perimeters and secure wounded before drawing his own weapon, while the opponents right in front of him were appearently already armed and shooting. This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.

Kanluwen wrote:
You do not feth around with non-lethal ammunition when someone starts waving a gun around.

I am reading this as 'holy feth I managed to get the gun from of those guys who are shooting at us' paniced civvies might not distinguish between soldiers shooting from helicopters and those not shooting on the deck. The number of wounds taken by the commandoes sounds consistent without a paniced reflex by people who thought they were already under fire had noone to run and nowhere to hide. The two wounds suffered by the commandoes from captured guns and whatever else at hand may well have occured as the activists tried to take away the guns.

Analysing the commandoes own testimony this looks quite unlike a Heroic commando raid. Its a slaughter of civilians on a crowded ship, like the eye witness reports claim it is. The initial paintball attack from the helicopters now helps piece this together and explains the level of panic caused and why the activitists reacted with the commandoes as they did.

Kanluwen wrote:
And the USMC's sniper corps was investigated early on in their deployment in Iraq due to the fact that an extremely high number of headshots were being confirmed.
What's your point?

Hopefully we are talking about genuinely intentionally armed insurgents in Iraq, not paniced civilians. Wa are also talking about sniper single shot kills not finishing shots.

Kanluwen wrote:
Funny things happen with firearms when you've got a trained shooter using them. People actually go down.

Also as indicated above it is very likely that these wounds were seperate finishing shots and thus murders. They corroborate eye witness accounts that claim the commandoes shot activists who were already down. Big difference.



Explaining fire discipline to yanks is even harder than I thought.

If the protesters were under fire from the helicopter, they would have been down.

Period.

This is the really sad part.

He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.

He had a Glock. For shame!!! You can't be wicked uber cool with a mere Glock. Sure it has 19 rounds in a clip, and is nearly indestructible, but at least they could be armed with Springfield XDMs or something. Come on man, thats what over inflated budgets are for-cool toys!!!

Kanluwen wrote:If the protesters were under fire from the helicopter, they would have been down.

Period.

Again your lack of comprehension shows through. Try reading the thread. The shooters on the helicopters apparently didnt have/use real guns.

Civilans under fire from paintball guns would not go down, some would be discommoded I suppose in order to provide minimal force fire support at the point of entry. Nice in theory but a fethed up idea. The actual effect would have been that others thought that everyone was under random shooting attack. Panic, in the dark, helicopter loud overhead, searchlights, fear, confusion, crowded decks and people beng 'hit'means: We are being shot at. We are all going to die, we cannot hide, we cannot flee. A fight reaction thus takes place and the civilians human nature kicks in and they lash out at the commandoes landing amongst them.

Ther convoy was declared to be and intended to be peaceful, they were not properly armed and certainly not armed enough to resist a well armed force like the Israelis. Ther limited footage we do see shows that the majority of the pasengers, ie.e those outside the direct assault were trying to remain calm and not do anything provocative. It makes more sense now, more reasonable than to think that all the crazy fanatics just happened to be near where the commandoes landed, and far more reaonable than to assume they were 'all' violent fanatics.

Peerhaps the sad truth was that none of them were, they got paintballed cried out in pain and the panic started, commandoes dropped into ther panic and the full trajedy then unfolded. No wonder the Israelis dont want to let that out. Better to claim in the media thart they were all murderous terrorists hell bent on shipping evil humanitarian supplies of evil to the people of Gaza.

Frazzled wrote:This is the really sad part......He had a Glock. For shame!!!

Frazzie, you are being a dick.

Aid workers gunned down by an opressive regime for wanting to bring home conforts to an opressed people. Thats the sad part.

Mr Obama met with Mr Abbas in the White House

US President Barack Obama has said the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable" and promised millions of dollars in new aid for the territory.

He made the remarks as he met Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Washington.

The White House visit was scheduled before the deadly Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last week.

Mr Obama urged both Israel and the Palestinians to make concessions and return to stalled peace talks.

"Not only is the status quo with respect to Gaza unsustainable, but the status quo with respect to the Middle East is unsustainable," Mr Obama said.

"It is time for us to go ahead, move forward on a two-state solutio

loki old fart wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is anybody fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

There fixed it

Why wouldn't someone? Sounds like fun. It is what happens afterward that is questionable.

You = troll = fail
stick to 40k you might know something about that

How is saying that fast roping on to a boat would be an interesting and fun thing to do trolling? Never been rappelling or mountain climbing? If someone said that base-jumping looked like fun would you call that trolling? Now getting into a melee firefight with a crew would not be something to consider fun, but then the question wasn't about that. Do you...do you know what a troll is or just using the word because you've seen others use it because it really doesn't make a lot of sense here.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This is the really sad part......He had a Glock. For shame!!!

Frazzie, you are being a dick.

Aid workers gunned down by an opressive regime for wanting to bring home conforts to an opressed people. Thats the sad part.

Thats not nurturing Orly.
You see pooor innocent aid workers guned down by oppressive regime. I see terrorists and their fellow travellers trying to breach a blockade so follow on ships could carry rockets from Iran to kill Israeli women and children. I am sure the truth is what lies in between.

But back to the Glock. All cool special forces guys use Sig Sauers. They are the Mercedes of pistols and weapon of choice for special forces/tools of oppressive regimes everywhere. Even the Texas Rangers use Sigs. Come on guys, don't be the laughing stock of your special forces bros'. be a man and shell out the cash.

loki old fart wrote:
Mr Obama met with Mr Abbas in the White House

US President Barack Obama has said the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable" and promised millions of dollars in new aid for the territory.

He made the remarks as he met Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Washington.

The White House visit was scheduled before the deadly Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last week.

Mr Obama urged both Israel and the Palestinians to make concessions and return to stalled peace talks.

"Not only is the status quo with respect to Gaza unsustainable, but the status quo with respect to the Middle East is unsustainable," Mr Obama said.

"It is time for us to go ahead, move forward on a two-state solutio

.. elections this November yeah ?

Ah well, at least he tried.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.

Yeah, but why is a cop doing it?

ShumaGorath wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
No, thats lethal force responding to a pipe being flashed. I don't think I'm the one that needs to get their definition straight. Also killing the civilians of another nation on the high seas intentionally as a military operation is a declaration of war.

Find a cop. Flash a pipe at him. Report back on what happens.

Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.

Yeah, but why is a cop doing it?

Because the Army guy is the one in the helicopter with the sniper rifle zeroed to your shnoz?

Again if you believe waiving a pipe is not lethal force try it with a cop. They are trained on what lethal force is and, unlike your average spetznatz, usually has a tazer or such vs. a sharpened shovel. Report back on what occurs.

or, if you like living, go for the boat with female crew and mysteriously busted compass option. I think this is the better option myself.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, but why is a cop doing it?

Because they don't recognize your diplomatic immunity, of course.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Why is the cop fastroping onto my boat in international waters?

Because you've advertised your intent to run a blockade that is, in practice, legal.

The legality of the blockade is a moot point wirth different answers depending on what lawyer you talk to.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not dancing with semantics and it's tiring to hear you use that in defense of your trollish posting behavior in regards to my sentiments every time you manage to intentionally misquote me. You seem capable of interacting with others normally, why is that so difficult for you here? I don't particularly care about the other boats, I wasn't speaking on the other ones. Their existence is irrelevant to what I posted.

Misquoting you? Not at all- I quoted what you said verbatim. If you dont like how your statements are interpreted, perhaps be more precise in thier wording. You also seem ot think my entire post was about you- which is pure hubris as you arent the only one posting in this thread. You may not care about the other boats, because the involvement partially invalidates some of the points you were trying to make. And you seem to think anyone that cant find the substance in your claims to be tiresome, and yet you dont seem to realize its your approach that determines how people respond to you.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:Also- Im curious, while maritime law isnt my specialty- why do people assume that you can do anything you want in international waters and not have to deal with any responsibility or repercussions?

On open waters the national law of the registered nationalities of the boats and passengers are paramount so long as their actions don't violate international law. Israel had a thin and fairly conflicting blockade law set that it is using to justify it's actions and the aid workers are using the gray legal status of Israels blockade and pure righteousness to justify their own actions. Technically both sides are breaking national and international laws, but what actually occurred is still gray enough for conflicting levels of legality to be argued. Also people don't often understand international maritime law as a rule of thumb.

And we have a case where the Turkish boats are saying they werent violating those laws- and the Israelis saying they were going to- add into the fact these protestors had announced they were going to run the blockade. That declaration is whats going to bite them- since it shows they had deliberate intent to breach the blockade. If an Israeli Naval group is shadowing your little convoy and warning you to change course, and you're doing the 'Screw you! we're gonna break your blockade but we're still in international waters! neeener nneener nneeeenner " They were warned, had alternatives open to them, chose not to take them- and continued on a course to violate the blockade. Whether the blockade is legal or moral is a whole other topic, but the people on those boats knowingly put themselves in harms way, and are now crying foul. It would be like if I went down to Nogales with a bullhorn and started yelling 'Kick out the mexicans!' yes, its legal, but wouldnt be particularly smart.

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, but why is a cop doing it?

Because they don't recognize your diplomatic immunity, of course.

This is now reminding me of the Pope thread.

Orlanth wrote:This is now reminding me of the Pope thread.

Misquoting you? Not at all- I quoted what you said verbatim. If you dont like how your statements are interpreted, perhaps be more precise in thier wording. You also seem ot think my entire post was about you- which is pure hubris as you arent the only one posting in this thread. You may not care about the other boats, because the involvement partially invalidates some of the points you were trying to make. And you seem to think anyone that cant find the substance in your claims to be tiresome, and yet you dont seem to realize its your approach that determines how people respond to you.

Goody goody gumdrops. I found your claim tiresome because you apparently lack the wherewithal to understand that my post was a simple comment to the psychological conditions that can be present in circumstances like these. You brought the 'semantic' debate into this. I'm holding to the belief that you simply misread my posts because of the little voice in your head that you've assigned to my posting.

And we have a case where the Turkish boats are saying they werent violating those laws- and the Israelis saying they were going to- add into the fact these protestors had announced they were going to run the blockade. That declaration is whats going to bite them- since it shows they had deliberate intent to breach the blockade. If an Israeli Naval group is shadowing your little convoy and warning you to change course, and you're doing the 'Screw you! we're gonna break your blockade but we're still in international waters! neeener nneener nneeeenner " They were warned, had alternatives open to them, chose not to take them- and continued on a course to violate the blockade. Whether the blockade is legal or moral is a whole other topic, but the people on those boats knowingly put themselves in harms way, and are now crying foul. It would be like if I went down to Nogales with a bullhorn and started yelling 'Kick out the mexicans!' yes, its legal, but wouldnt be particularly smart.

Is the intention of running an illegal blockade an illegal act? Firstly, beyond the precrime angle is it illegal to violate a blockade that is not internationally recognized to bring aid to a region that is not owned by the nation with the blockade? There is a sizeable gray area here and by quite a few maritime laws what the israelis did was an act of piracy, war, or both. It's an easy argument to state that the aid runners were putting themselves in harms way, but thats a question of degrees not legality and what many people are asserting is that they were putting themselves in harms way in a legal fashion and that it was Israels actions that were unlawfully putting others in harms way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:This is now reminding me of the Pope thread.

You dug yourself a pretty deep hole in both.

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

I knew this would work. All it takes to teach you about multiple possibilities is to give you a reason to find some in defense of your own viewpoint.

All I've been trying to get across to you is that calling the commandos "murderers" is wrong, given all the plausible scenarios in which they would not be.

Now you see how that logic works. Because there are plausible scenarios where the activists didn't have a pistol, you don't wish to presume they had the pistol.

Do you not see how hypocritical you're being? You don't like the activists being called "terrorists." I don't either, I think it's wrong. But your response is to be wrong in the other direction, and call the commandos "murderers." There's no proof of that, either.

If you don't like the way Israeli media is spinning this, why are you doing the same thing?

And, let's be serious. Where do you think it's MOST LIKELY that pistol is? Not where it COULD be. Where it MOST LIKELY ended up after the commando lost it.

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

The Israeli commandos were armed with paintguns firing pepperballs. Are you seriously not aware of that? You're passing yourself off as a forensic expert on this skirmish, and you didn't even know this?

Seriously, you're just being disrespectful to everyone in this thread. We don't deserve to have you piss up our leg and tell us it's rain.

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

If I'm not mistaken, nobody was killed on that yacht, and it was overtaken AFTER the larger ship where the melee ensued.

Seems entirely reasonable. They went in soft on the big ship, and there was a major problem. They went in hard on the other ships to assure there was no repeat, and there wasn't.

It's a shame those people got roughed up like that, but the conditions demanded it.

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

You can repeat this all you want, but you need to understand that nobody besides you considers it a fact.

It's my understanding that this kid was shot once in the back of the head. One shot does not an execution make. Were there powder burns? The forensic reports give a distance. I'd like to know how they established that.

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

Well, they don't at all, but to the people on the boat, they may have. If they had a real carbine to compare to, they'd know the difference, but they didn't. However most people don't realize just how loud a real gun is, so they might think a paintgun was loud enough, without a comparison point.

Honestly, here's what I think happened:

- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got together some metal pipes to fight back with.
- The commandos started coming in, and the activists went to confront them, not really realizing how much of an upper hand they had. When the commandos started falling down the activists got excited. "We can really win this!" They started wailing on them with pipes.
- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons.
- Total chaos.
- Activists realize that, no, they can't actually win and give up.

I've seen a lot of instances where people want to get up in a riot cop's face and yell and shove. I think that was the goal of these activists. When the riot cop falls over, and starts getting beat on, I think people just join in. I don't think they had any real plan.

I can't think of any examples of a witness being wrong in their recollections of traumatic events.

Exactly. One thing they teach in handgun training classes is to always yell "DROP YOUR WEAPON" at the person you're engaged with. This has two main benefits:

1) They may actually do it. And they may drop a weapon you didn't see in the first place.

But the one relevant here:

2) Witnesses who hear "DROP YOUR WEAPON" are more likely to actually remember the person as having a weapon, and say so in court. Even if they don't actually see a weapon, they may remember it that way, because of your yelling. The mind is very impressionable under duress.

This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.

Yes, and then NO.

I agree, these are just civillians, and they had no organization or plan. The story totally supports that, as the Israelis had time to "circle the wagons."

However, the second bit here is pure fantasy. They were not in a blind panic. People in a blind panic don't attack. They might fight if cornered, but generally they run away. I think these activists, while disorganized, were emboldened by their earlier success, and thought they were going to have more. When they started getting shot, they realized that wasn't the case, and gave up.

Orlanth, look, this has to stop. I admit, I've been insulting to you in this thread. I apologize for the tone. But the fact is, you're being EXTREMELY intellectually dishonest. You're repeatedly saying things that you HAVE to know aren't true or even logical. Show a little respect to the rest of us, and stop trying to steamroll us with wild speculation and baseless assertions. Be objective. Be critical of what you're saying. Don't say something unless it's really, truly valid. Don't just say what MIGHT be true, and suits you. Be critical of yourself, instead of everyone else.

Phryxis wrote:

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

I knew this would work. All it takes to teach you about multiple possibilities is to give you a reason to find some in defense of your own viewpoint.

I was asked for options I gave options.

Phryxis wrote:
All I've been trying to get across to you is that calling the commandos "murderers" is wrong, given all the plausible scenarios in which they would not be.
Now you see how that logic works. Because there are plausible scenarios where the activists didn't have a pistol, you don't wish to presume they had the pistol.

However you dismissed all witnesses as not credible at a whim, and been presumptive with evidence:

Phryxis (much earlier post) wrote:
I think we all can agree that the initial hostilities were initiated by the flotilla. Commandos attempted to fast rope in with non-lethal weapons in hand, and were brutally physically assaulted. It's actually a bit of a miracle that none of the Israelis were killed at this point. We know this for a fact, we've seen the video of it.

Case in point. You accept the very limited coverage that has been released as flat fact, not finding that its odd that its clipped heavily and that other footage known to have been shot it missing. You also seem to take as a given that the activists initiated hostilities.

Admitedly at this point you might not have known that the pepperball guns were being used fro the helicopters from the outset. I didnt at the time.

Phryxis wrote:
Do you not see how hypocritical you're being? You don't like the activists being called "terrorists." I don't either, I think it's wrong. But your response is to be wrong in the other direction, and call the commandos "murderers." There's no proof of that, either.

The fininshing shots from a direction different to previous shots sounds suspicious, I meantioned that if they were finishing moves/coup de grace then the victims were murdered. As the shot direction seems to corroborate eyewitness accounts that say the activists were shot while on the ground there is a good reason to make the claim they were murdered.
1. Direction of wounding
2. eyewtiness reports.
3. Illegality of fininshing off downed opponents.

Its all logical. the fact you dont like where the logic leads is not my problem.

Phryxis wrote:
And, let's be serious. Where do you think it's MOST LIKELY that pistol is? Not where it COULD be. Where it MOST LIKELY ended up after the commando lost it.

Two apparently got into the hands of activists, and apparently caused two gunshot wounds between them. whether this includes this commandoes gun whether he was shot and what happeend to the gun or the person holding it. Who can say.

Phryxis wrote:You're passing yourself off as a forensic expert on this skirmish, and you didn't even know this?

Forensic expertise is not specifically required, just a basic knowledge of human anatomy, front back etc. If the doctors who did the examinations tell us where the activists were shot thats all the forsensics expertise I need right there. Noone is disputing their findings, not that they would have much option so the imformation is good to use.

Phryxis wrote:We don't deserve to have you piss up our leg and tell us it's rain.

Making such comments doesnt add to a weight of opinion, but readers might be hoodwinked into thinking that I havent tried to explain myself properly and you are getting 'justifiably' exasperated. Especially as you claim to be speaking for 'everyone else' by using first person plural. Nice try.

You are bing most unfair. I have taken the time to explain my point of view logically. Please stick to the issues.

Phryxis wrote:
You can repeat this all you want, but you need to understand that nobody besides you considers it a fact.

Speaking for everyone again Phryxis. A little trick to isolate someone from debate.

Phryxis wrote:
It's my understanding that this kid was shot once in the back of the head. One shot does not an execution make. Were there powder burns? The forensic reports give a distance. I'd like to know how they established that.

We dont have that, we had odd data as to where Dogan was hit and it shows he was hit from several directions. Yes we do have a distance this can IIRC be established by the size of the wound and type of bullet used. Its the doctors estimate, I am ok to go with a medical examiners report.

Phryxis wrote:

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

Well, they don't at all, but to the people on the boat, they may have. If they had a real carbine to compare to, they'd know the difference, but they didn't. However most people don't realize just how loud a real gun is, so they might think a paintgun was loud enough, without a comparison point.

This is more likely if they were not used to firearms. Most terrorists are likely used to firearms one way or another. Ther more 'peaceful' the activist the more likely they are to misinterpret the incoming fire and panic thinking they were under attack with deadly force. This would be compounded by the lack of visible woubnds on the persons hit. a peace activist with no experienced of armed conflict might have a 'movie' based interpreation of what happens when bullets hit people.
One caveat though, the activists were nerar or directly under helicopters at the time further confusiong what they were hearing.

Phryxis wrote:
Honestly, here's what I think happened:

- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got together some metal pipes to fight back with.
- The commandos started coming in, and the activists went to confront them, not really realizing how much of an upper hand they had. When the commandos started falling down the activists got excited. "We can really win this!" They started wailing on them with pipes.
- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons.
- Total chaos.
- Activists realize that, no, they can't actually win and give up.

Ok here is my alternative version.

- The activists were sailing along, expecting to get boarded, so they got onto the deck to wall off any attempted insertion. It looks like the planned strategy was to wall of and immobilise/manhandle any commandoes they encounter without harming anyone.
There is evidence to support this because this is precisely what the activists did do in the wheelhouse. Formed a human wall that the Israelis could not easily break through and could not get away with (or to be fair to them try) to destroy by shooting. Incidentally the human wall was broken down with applied electric shocks. Nasty but I cannot criticise the Israelis there.
Also press still images of commandoes shows them being held down by hand rather than beaten down. even thr Islraeli press used the word 'held down' to describe what happened to the commandoes.

- The Israelis surrounded the aid flotilla and harried them closely for a considerable time. An acceptible tactic so as to disguise the exact plan of attack. This exhausted the activists who were surrounded and harried by boats and helicopters, bright lights, and noise. Again no complaints there, but it would have been unnerving and worn the activists down.

- Helicopters approached very close and activists near the LZ were hit with pepperguns. This caused a panic amongst those activists wwho were unused to military operations.

- The commandos started coming in, and the activists had nowhere to run, even though they thought they were under fire. When the commandos started landing the activists lashed out, some went down and the activists tried to immobilise them. Some commandoes were attacked with batons, knives and two captured pistols by paniced activists. However the commandoes had very few casualties even though many were being held and photgraphed. There was very likely time to shoot or stab commandoews qwho were held down by several activists so itv is not unfair to assume that the majority still wanted to stick with the orginal plan.

- More commandos came in, got the critical mass to fight back, but thought things were out of control and went to lethal weapons. At about this time activists tried to surrender.

- Total chaos.

Phryxis wrote:

This makes most sense if there was a lot of intentional delay and the people the commandoes faced were just civilians not organised terrorists; and that thse civilians were acting out of blind panic and did not want to actually kill anyone.

Yes, and then NO.

I agree, these are just civillians, and they had no organization or plan. The story totally supports that, as the Israelis had time to "circle the wagons."

Ok

Phryxis wrote:
However, the second bit here is pure fantasy. They were not in a blind panic. People in a blind panic don't attack. They might fight if cornered, but generally they run away. I think these activists, while disorganized, were emboldened by their earlier success, and thought they were going to have more. When they started getting shot, they realized that wasn't the case, and gave up.

Its a fight or flight instinct we have, with emphasis on the 'or'. Flight is the stronger impulse I agree, but when flight is not possible paniced people fight. The decks were intentionally crowded in oder to form ther human wall. the activists toook planty of people along likely for that purpose. once they thought they were taking live fire from helicopters panic would ensue. commandoes fast rope in and the crowd fenzies. Some of them held enough nerve to stick with plan A form a human wall in the wheelhouse and immobilise rather than kill comandoes. Others grabbed batons and the commandoes pistols and used them in panic. There were suprising few casualties as a result, only two gunshot wounds were reported so its likely that either the commandoes stitched to deadly force pretty much immediately contradicting the commandoes published testimony, or most of the activists remained refused to cross the line even when in direct contact with their enemy. The latter is quite likely as even paniced people will not kill unles it is in their base nature do so. A paniced civilian might flail against a commando by hand but is unlikely to start shooting or stabbing if they are essentially a peaceable person.

Phryxis wrote:
Orlanth, look, this has to stop. I admit, I've been insulting to you in this thread. I apologize for the tone.

Thankyou. I will also not try to rise to the bait.

Phryxis wrote:
But the fact is, you're being EXTREMELY intellectually dishonest. You're repeatedly saying things that you HAVE to know aren't true or even logical.

I will just have to accept you read the same reports differently to me. Please extend the same courtesy.
i have shown logical integrity not dishonesty. I have tried my best to stick to the issues and take the time to point out my logical in related stages that are internally consistent.
You belong to your own paradigm. You draw different conclusions from the same datas so be it. I cannot stop that, that is the point of debate. The gurf between our conclusions give you no right to claim that my conclusions are based on intellectual dishonesty. You ought to know by now that they are not. You are no guarantor of truth, you can at best only offer an alternaste explanation. Try sticking to the issues and your own train of logic. In fact it would be refreshing for you to actually show a train of logical consequence as I have, you normally just post your conclusions and not the thinking between.

Phryxis wrote:
Show a little respect to the rest of us, and stop trying to steamroll us with wild speculation and baseless assertions. Be objective. Be critical of what you're saying. Don't say something unless it's really, truly valid. Don't just say what MIGHT be true, and suits you. Be critical of yourself, instead of everyone else.

Respect for the thread was shown, there is evidence for this because I took the time to point out the logical sequence in what I was saying. I am self critical and objective as evidenced by the same principle. Everything is explained as with the thinking that goes with it. Again I note 'us' (italicised) and appeal to claim to speak for everyone claim to speak for everyone. ad populem is not a valid point of argument, in fact it is a dishonest propoganda technique and contradicts your argument that I am being 'extermely intellectually dishonest' whether posted in block caps or not.
You can and should do better than that.

However you dismissed all witnesses as not credible at a whim

Yeah, ON BOTH SIDES. I am not aware of any impartial witness to this affair.

Also, while I don't find them totally credible, I do think it's important to hear what they all have to say. I just don't take it as a statment of fact. As I said earlier, I look for things we know are true, and for things that both sides agree upon.

We have seen testimony from Israeli commandos as to how they formed perimiters and shot attackers. Are they not credible?

They describe a fairly desperate stand, where they surround their wounded and fight to defend them. Is that not credible?

You also seem to take as a given that the activists initiated hostilities.

No, I consider this to be an accepted fact on all sides...

But I would also understand confusion. I'm not viewing the use of pepperballs as "hostilities." I view the use of metal pipes to beat somebody as "hostilities" and, I believe, both sides agree that this happened before any shooting of actual firearms took place.

If you feel that shooting pepperballs constitutes "hostilities" I wouldn't necessarily disagree, it's just a matter of definitions, and isn't important. What I think IS important is that the use of metal pipes was the first potentially LETHAL act.

Thats what I'm trying to get across. The first truly DANGEROUS action was taken by members of the flotilla.

They may have THOUGHT they were being shot at with real firearms. They may not have known they were taking the first dangerous action, but the fact is, they did.

I meantioned that if they were finishing moves/coup de grace then the victims were murdered.

Finishing moves? It's not Mortal Kombat, dude... Zionist Murderer... WINS! GREATLY FLAWED VICTORY!

To be clear, I don't disagree that deliberately shooting an unconscious person in the back of the head is an illegitimate thing to do. I'm not sure it's technically "murder" in this situation, but it's certainly excessive, and I understand fully your disgust with it.

BUT... I see no proof that this happened, and in fact I don't even see any strong implications that this happend. I would think that witnesses would have specifically mentioned this if it happened, but I haven't seen that. I've seen a lot of "they shot them and it was murder" but no mention of "he went over to the downed person and shot him in the head."

And to be clear, shooting somebody who is laying down, say from 25 feet away, is not the same thing (at all) as going over to them while they're down, aiming at the back of their head, and firing. It's very easy to miss and hit somebody on the deck at 25 yards. AND, if you're hiding next to the downed person, all you see is them getting shot, not how much duress the shooter was under, or what he was trying to hit. That would effect your testimony.

So, I see no proof that these executions actually happened. What I do is see is a lot of speculation on your part, and confusion as to how many shots were fired, etc. One second this kid was hit once in the head, then it's three, then it's one... Not only is that not proof of anything, but you can't even seem to keep your not proof straight.

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to being critical of your own views. You can certainly make the argument that the wound patterns COULD be the result of a deliberate execution, but to conclude it with the certainty that you have is just irresposible.

Even if that's what you believe happened, you need to have the sense to know that not everyone is leaping to that conclusion, and so you can't just state it as fact over and over again as if everyone agrees.

Two apparently got into the hands of activists, and apparently caused two gunshot wounds between them.

I'm not clear, did any of the commandos suffer a gunshot wound? I was under the impression that they did not, but you seem to be saying that two gunshots were inflicted on the commandos.

That's actually even worse than I had thought. I had thought the guns were taken, but not effectively used.

You were making arguments that the gun could have gone into the sea, when you KNOW it was in the hands of the activists? See how disingenuous that is?

If the doctors who did the examinations tell us where the activists were shot thats all the forsensics expertise I need right there.

You really can't pull crap like this. Surely you understand how totally unqualified you are to make these judgements? There are people that do this work for a living, who are trained and experienced in piecing together a likely flow of events, and you're obviously not one of them. And even THEY wouldn't claim to know the details you pretend to.

You're an armchair pathologist, and even at that you're extremely poor. Take the American who was shot, Furkan Dogan: "Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle."

To you, it's IMPOSSIBLE that he wasn't executed. But how about this:

He's approaching with a metal pipe. The commando fires low, hoping to stop him, hitting his left leg and ankle. He is unaffected and keeps coming. The commando fires high this time, rapidly as the attacker is now close, the first shot striking his nose, and wounding him badly. He spins away and takes another shot in the back, then one in the head, causing him to collapse. The collapse is all that registers with the commando, causing him to stop firing.

ANOTHER one: He comes around a corner holding a gun, and is immediately shot in the face, causing him to fall. Another activist picks up the pistol, crouches down, and tries to shoot around the corner. In the exchange of fire, the commandos hit the prostrate Dogan four more times in the leg, back and head.

It's VERY possible for this any of this to happen. I'm not saying it's the most likely case. I'm not saying it IS what happened. But you like to pretend that from a brief summary of his wounds, you KNOW he was executed with a gunshot to the back of his neck.

You DON'T know that. Stop claiming you do.

One caveat though, the activists were nerar or directly under helicopters at the time further confusiong what they were hearing.

Actually, its probable that the paintguns wouldn't have been audible over the sound of the choppers. They may not have noticed the shooting at all.

even thr Islraeli press used the word 'held down' to describe what happened to the commandoes.

But we see one with a considerable amount of blood on him. He is also, clearly being held down, but he has also clearly been injured badly enough to soak articles of clothing in blood. There is a drawn knife visible, which is not a useful tool for holding somebody down.

So I agree, they were held down, but they were also beaten very badly with metal pipes. You can see the blows coming down in the videos.

when flight is not possible paniced people fight.

Two problems... Flight WAS possible. The commandos had circled up. They weren't pursuing anybody. And even when "fight" is the response, it's not to pursue and attack, it's to stand ground and fight. It's also done as an individual, not as a group. A group of people don't experience the effect.

There's simply no way that a group of people would attack armed commandos in a "panic." They would have to be much more confident for that.

It's not reasonable to just say "panic" and then assume any action after that point is fair game.

And hey, if it is, why aren't the commandos, surrounded and defending their wounded under gunfire, also in a "panic?"

I will just have to accept you read the same reports differently to me. Please extend the same courtesy.
i have shown logical integrity not dishonesty.

I understand that you feel that way, but I simply can't agree. I don't think you're holding yourself to the same standards of accuracy that you expect the Israelis to hold themselves to. Considering that you have nothing to lose and the Israelis DO, you should be that much MORE accurate than them.

I would gladly extend you the courtesy if you were talking anywhere NEAR logic or reason. I have shown that. For example, while loki is more on your side of events than mine, he's not making the sort of flagrantly ridiculous allegations you are, so I can respect what he's saying.

I will always do the courtesy of respecting a well stated position. I simply can't agree that everything you've said, or even a small minority of what you've said, fits that description.