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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37477182/ns/world_news-europe

This from the man who is well versed in dealing with terrorists.

I don't care who they had ties to years ago. if they had no weapons, and the people on board were just protesters, it's still murder.

The only gunshots look like they came from the "peaceful protesters" grabbing the pistols from the soldiers, who were firing Pepperball guns.

Elements within the charity supported jihadi operations in the 1990s, Bruguiere said, before adding: "I don't know whether they continued to do so" more recently.

Out of curiosity, why create a whole thread for this? There is already one open, with an active discussion.

Anyway... interesting, but seemingly irrelevant, if for nothing but the decade in between then... and now.

sexiest_hero wrote:I don't care who they had ties to years ago. if they had no weapons, and the people on board were just protesters, it's still murder.

So, you're saying terrorists without guns, arent terrorists anymore?

It sucks some of them died, but once they started swinging metal pipes- they escalated things. Once they took the soldiers side arms- they escalated it to a lethal level. They made poor choices too- hence they arent innocent victims.

Just didn't want to see it get buried in a long thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jordan has a history of killing Palistinians, also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

If nothing else, it's a good springboard for further research. I do remember hearing about this back in the day, though.

Mistress of minis wrote:So, you're saying terrorists without guns, arent terrorists anymore?

It sucks some of them died, but once they started swinging metal pipes- they escalated things. Once they took the soldiers side arms- they escalated it to a lethal level. They made poor choices too- hence they arent innocent victims.

DAMMIT!

So that must mean... OMG... the U.S. are terrorists as well.
So many examples to choose from, SO MANY EXAMPLES.

Dropping commandos into an angry mob of demonstrators is a bad idea. I should just make a picture explaining that. Better yet, one is already made!

From what I read, they certainly had weapons. The report I read said they had clubs, knives, and tried to take guns from soldiers. And that at least ten soldiers were injured as well.

Trying to go through a blockade is more or less stupid. Especially with a country known not for it's sense of humour. When you have people trying to run a blockade, and your blockade is to weaken militant groups (Regardless of how effective it is. It might be people smuggling televisions in for the public, it might be also very well be guns for insurgents) you don't take chances. You stop them, period.

For as bad as Israel is made out to be, you think this was a torpedoed merchant ship full of Nuns and Lepers headed for a colony.

That may be scheduled for next week according to some people.

halonachos wrote:That may be scheduled for next week according to some people.

Yep, unfortunate situation all around.

Relapse wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37477182/ns/world_news-europe

This from the man who is well versed in dealing with terrorists.

So lets get this straight, the accusation comes from the evidence that members of a jihadist group were also members of the IHH. Ok. Let us assume this is exactly true, a given.

If you were a terrorist, you would want a cover identity. Unless terrorists write down 'terrorist' on their documentation under the heading of occupation. Now if you have a cover identity would you tell your co-workers what it was?
This evidence, even if assumed true means nothing.
As for funding, charities accept donations from everywhere, they don't ask where a donation comes from, nor do they need to, nor often can they.

Let us put the boot on the other foot, and assume we are talking about a group myself and others are more vocally opposed to. Assuming an IRA terrorist joined a charity, got a job, told noone what he was, raised some funding in his local community, and arranged for a friend who he knew was also an IRA member to get a job from the inside. Does this mean the charity is a front for terror? No it doesnt. It's deep cover.

Well the next ship is due to reach gaza soon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10240856.stm

And a warm reception it will not get
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10243813.stm

I just realised who the ship was named after. I had remembered the incident and forgot her name.

RIP Rachel.

RIP all the foreign aid workers who have been gunned down by the IDF over the years; and everytime, Israel says it's troops weren't to blame, it was all a tragic accident, etc... All that does is make the IDF look incompetent.

RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.

The ship is named after a US college student who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer as she protested over house demolitions in Gaza.

It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.

I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.

Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.

I believe Egypt has opened it's border crossing (Rafah) to allow aid in in light of what happened earlier in the week.

Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.

Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.

When was it declared legal

J.Black wrote:I believe Egypt has opened it's border crossing (Rafah) to allow aid in in light of what happened earlier in the week.

One of the few positive results of Hamas' election was the removal of EU BAM (in practical terms an extension of the Israeli state) from control of the crossing; leaving it entirely in Egyptian hands. Well, Egyptian and PA hands, but the PA is never going to opt for the closure of a Gaza border, given the current conditions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:
When was it declared legal

The rules governing legal blockades are very open-ended. Technically, a physical blockade cannot be established in international waters, but states have the freedom to intercept any vessel which they believe to be intent on running a blockade, regardless of its actual location. Conceivably the Israelis could have boarded the flotilla as soon as it entered international waters; citing the advertised intent to break the blockade. Obviously the further from the blockade the ship happens to be, the more likely that its interception will be contested by the flag flown by the vessel.

What dogma says, but to give you a rough date, pretty much since the Civil War. The union regularly boarded ships that on the high seas that were suspected of planning to run the blockade.

Let's put it this way: if there had been a ship seeking to deliver relief supplies to the Tamil, Sri Lanka could intercept it in international waters, and nobody would really say anything. The only reason the legality of the blockade is seriously questioned (outside of the perennial challenges against blockades at all) is because Israel is involved.

The main question of fact at this point is if the IDF or the crew used deadly force first. And frankly, the way the IDF boarded isn't a factor. In these situations, you heave to when ordered.

dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.

Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:It should be acknowledged that Israel does provide a mechanism by which aid can bypass the blockade through legitimate channels. It must also be acknowledged that only about 1/4 of the aid that is intended for Gaza received by the Israeli state ever makes it into Gaza. The West Bank is a different story, of course.

Didn't the Israelis before this whole shebang went down state that the incoming vessels if they diverted to Ashdod the aid workers could accompany their supplies in, provided they agreed to an inspection first?

Inspection means a lot of things including removing contraband, contraband insides such items as livestock, tinned food, fresh fruit, meat and vegetables, tools etc. Basic anything likely to give the people of Gaza a measure of sustainability. it is also delayed to a trickle so that the people are constantly in need. They shouldnt pay those games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I guess I'm not sure what the problem is. Absent more facts about the nature of who used lethal force first, I'm not sure how to look at this is any other way than an unfortunate occurrence during the enforcement of a legal blockade.

Borders and Blockades are areas of geography and law in which a person has few, if any rights.

blockades are by definition illegal. Embargos are lergal.

As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.

The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.

In international affairs, the link between lawfullness and goodness is tenous at best.

the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.

Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal.

Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal.

boarding a ship to inspect it is legal.

shooting people that resist is not great, but legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
As for who fired first, if the Israelis are so sure they did not why not return the cameras of the activists they arrested. Those items are stolen anyway, being seized from a ship in internatioanl waters and so they should be returnwed. But they havent been. Why. Because the footage might show omething the Israelis dont want to be seen.

The only footage that has been aired is crudely edited and non continuous. Ominous really. They are hiding something, I wonder what that could be.

There are lot of reasons they don't return cameras. If they showed even one act that went over the line (say, a stray shot hitting a non-violent person), it could cause panic. And not to be too stereotypical, but the Middle East hasn't shown the greatest ability to apply context to images (see the mohammed cartoons). I don't blame Israel for keeping the footage.

And they're not stolen. The state can't steal.

Polonius wrote:In international affairs, the link between lawfullness and goodness is tenous at best.
the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal.
Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal.
boarding a ship to inspect it is legal.
shooting people that resist is not great, but legal.

So wrong. Where do you get your dogma from?

the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.

Wanting to bring supplies is good, and sort of legal.
Ish. You cannot transport the good through israeli territory without their permission.

Bringing supplies in through a closed port is good, but illegal.
you got this bit right. However the ports in Gaza are legally open according to the government of the region. Just not their oppressors.

boarding a ship to inspect it is legal.
Only in your own territorial waters.

shooting people that resist is not great, but legal.
Not if the ship was illegally boarded, and also not if they were not causing immediate severe risk of a lawful inspection. This normally includes fair warnings etc. we know ths ship was boarded illegally, only the most hair brained propoganda swallowers can fail to see that. As for puting soldiers at risk, thats irrelevant if thery shouldnt be there. But ignoring that for now we have conflicting stories. One side has witnesses who are knwon to have shot several protestors in an illegal boarding. The other conflicting eyewitnesses say something completely different, and have had any corroberating evidence to their astory stolen from them.

Some of the aopl;ogists are really clutching at straws, the IDF could be caught running a child brothel on the ship and it would still be someones elses fault.

Orlanth wrote:
So wrong. Where do you get your dogma from?

A certain amount of research into international law, as well as the israeli occupation of Gaza.

the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.

the line between legal and allowed in international law is also a fuzzy one. Israel won the territory, and what it does with it is really up to it under international law.

Polonius wrote:

the treatment of Gaza is legal, but bad.
Actually no, thats why its called an occupied territory. The fact that noone has done anything about it doesnt mean its legal.

the line between legal and allowed in international law is also a fuzzy one. Israel won the territory, and what it does with it is really up to it under international law.

Umm, didn't control of Gaza pass to the Palastinians in 1994?

Polonius wrote:

Some of the aopl;ogists are really clutching at straws, the IDF could be caught running a child brothel on the ship and it would still be someones elses fault.

Unfortunately, the polarizing nature of the issue makes the opposite more or less true. I'm not saying what they did was legal, I'm saying we need to get more facts.

Sadly most of those 'facts' have been stolen by the Israeli's and are very unlikely to see the light of day if they're going to make them look bad.