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.

helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately this is typical of the Isreali response to pretty much anything....
You throw rocks we throw rockets. You use sticks we use guns.

Sounds like a fething good idea to me.

Oh please, the Guardian are such hippies (yeah, I read (past tense) it =p)!

And since when is this new? How many Greenpeace boats have the Japanese and Russians sunk on international water? They don't care!

And before people start saying this is different, yes, it is, because Israel actually feels threatened by the thought of uncontrolled shipping into Gaza. You have to remember that Israel is a small jewish nation smack in the middle of a hostile environment. They are literally surrounded by nations who hate their guts. And who the heck cares that civilians were killed, they had nothing to do there in the first place, unless they were having a wonderful cruise of the coast of a fragging WARZONE! I've got relatives living in Israel, I've got half-cousins in the Israeli army. They've got hell down there. They have a constant threat and they have had it for over 50 years.

So when the Mossad fraks up 10 civilians you'd better be glad it isn't another Munich. Now go along with your lives and thank God that your house doesn't have a permanent bullseye for missiles. Unless you are a Coalition-soldier serving abroad in Afghanistan or Iraq, in which case I say, congratz, now imagine that for fifty year.

This message was brought to you via soapbox

Vargtass wrote:Oh please, the Guardian are such hippies (yeah, I read (past tense) it =p)!

And since when is this new? How many Greenpeace boats have the Japanese and Russians sunk on international water? They don't care!

And before people start saying this is different, yes, it is, because Israel actually feels threatened by the thought of uncontrolled shipping into Gaza. You have to remember that Israel is a small jewish nation smack in the middle of a hostile environment. They are literally surrounded by nations who hate their guts. And who the heck cares that civilians were killed, they had nothing to do there in the first place, unless they were having a wonderful cruise of the coast of a fragging WARZONE! I've got relatives living in Israel, I've got half-cousins in the Israeli army. They've got hell down there. They have a constant threat and they have had it for over 50 years.

So when the Mossad fraks up 10 civilians you'd better be glad it isn't another Munich. Now go along with your lives and thank God that your house doesn't have a permanent bullseye for missiles. Unless you are a Coalition-soldier serving abroad in Afghanistan or Iraq, in which case I say, congratz, now imagine that for fifty year.

This message was brought to you via soapbox

Im with this guy!

If they were to find anything more than concrete and electric wheelchairs I'd be ok. but the concrete has to be for "Israli approved buildings." I used to be a huge huge supporter. Now I'm really starting to wonder..

Love how the Washington Post covered it:

"Pro-Palestinian activists killed on Gaza aid flotilla"

Not civilians, not humanitarian aid workers, 'Pro Palestinian activists'. And nothing in the headline about who killed them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053101209.html?hpid=topnews


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Times seem to have done a better job:

'At Least 10 Are Killed as Israel Halts Flotilla With Gaza Aid'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?hp

Well, technically they ARE activists arent they? The average civilian is sat at home watching this on the telly! :-)

mattyrm wrote:If they tell you not to go through with your boat, then dont go. Im sick of these self righteous hippy types thinking they can do as they like. And im most amused they are stunned at what occured. Its the Isreali military!

If you ignore the signs on a coffee cup and you burn yourself, then its your own stupid fault. I dont see how its any different here, and the nationality of the people shot makes no difference either, i wouldnt at all be suprised if some Brits/Europeans or Ozzies were on the ship.. more fool them.

It's her own fault for getting raped, she was wearing sexy clothes!

I think that Israel's Siege on Gaza is illegal and wrong. And even if they were going to stop the convoy there are some points:

1. The convoy was STILL in international waters. So Israel's attack of the convoy was illegal.

2. The activists were unarmed and the reports I heard from Aljazeera English were that Israeli Commandos Opened fire because they saw "Sharp Objects" that the passengers were holding.

Even if they were going to stop the convoy, they had no right to do it in anyplace BUT their own waters. Though yes, The Israeli Gov't did offer to take the supplies and aid to Gaza after a Safety check and inspection, but be honest here, if you were in the Organizations shoe's would you trust them? I wouldn't. I would want to deliver the aid myself (10,000 tons of aid, mind you), and make the the people in Gaza actually got it.

I think it's high time the Israelis were cut loose. They're a fething liability. There is absolutely no way they would act in such an agressive manner if they didn't have the backing of the USA/UK etc.

They are arrogant, agressive and barbaric.

Albatross wrote:I think it's high time the Israelis were cut loose.

Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

If it's okay for the Israelis to take illegal violent action, is it also okay for the palestinians? I mean, next time some military aid is coming into the area, if some palestinians were to go and kill the lads bringing it in, would that be alright? Or is it only alright when you're the one with the biggest guns and the bestest friends?

I agree with ahtman, but I see albatross' point. I've always asked myself, since all this is done in the name of Zionism which many supporters take to a religious level, if the issue was to be settled in a US civil court, with an unbiased jury, Israel wouldn't stand a chance.

It's a bit more complicated than just Zionism.

So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

I guess the Post finally realized how out of step they were, the online headline now reads:

'10 killed in Israeli raid of ships carrying Gaza aid'

You should probably use a web link that isn't very clearly biased, but Israel looks pretty bad in this situation regardless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10195838.stm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

You're a class act.

Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.

It's quite plausible, the Israelis have made no real efforts at peace in the region in decades. They continue to settle their own people into disputed areas and relocate palestinians and their military acts often in civilian areas with little heed for collateral damage or civilian casualties. They flagrantly refuse the sit at the table for any nuclear talks, and they at any given point and time are committing multiple international crimes concerning the gaza strip. The only reason they aren't brought to task for much of it is because the US used to be their handler and because palestine is hardly any better. There's a strong movement to just leave them to their own devices and stop supporting them in much of the west now due to the gak they keep pulling.

Ketara wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

+1 to this train of thought.

If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?



These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.

I have to agree, those people were not very clever trying to run a blockade. I mean, if I was driving, and the police wanted to stop me for some reason, I'm not going to drive away from them, I'll stop.

Also, considering the amount of people who don't particulary like Israel, if I was in some sort of millitary position and I hear someone is going to try and go past your blockade, I am probably going to jump to the concluesion that they may have weapons on board and I want to check it out.

80 miles, now considering how long ranged some of the modern day weaponry is that is understandible even if it is wrong to do.

Edit: I admit I don't know enough about such weaponry so if any of you millitary types say that a ship couldn't carry a weapon big enough to reach 100+ miles in range then I will have to agree, 80 miles is slightly execive.

jp400 wrote:

Ketara wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

+1 to this train of thought.

If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?



These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.

Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.

ShumaGorath wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ketara wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

+1 to this train of thought.

If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?



These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.

Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.

This may be True Shuma, And after more news comes out from more reliable sources I very well may chance my mind. However, based off what I have been able to find on the net about this, I am going to stick with the above for now.

jp400 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Ketara wrote:So let me get this straight.

1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.

+1 to this train of thought.

If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?



These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.

Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.

This may be True Shuma, And after more news comes out from more reliable sources I very well may chance my mind. However, based off what I have been able to find on the net about this, I am going to stick with the above for now.

An aid ship bringing supplies to a region that Isreal has under an internationally illegal blockade. Ships that were in international waters. Ships that were sending food to an area that is in desperate need. And you're siding with the people that boarded it and shot people. They could have waited until they had legal jurisdiction in their own waters. They could have used those big military ships to tell the flotilla to turn around. They could have guided them into a port.

And yet you defend their choice to jump on those boats and start a fire fight. It doesn't really matter what was in those boats, this was handled totally wrong by Isreal and it resulted in deaths.

Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.

It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.

1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.

Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.

And.
It.
Never.
Did.
They.
Were.
In.
International.
Waters.

1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.

And next time some dude with a gun enters your home I hope you don't expect any sympathy from people reading about the incident when you get shot. Cause and effect is a pretty third grade way to look at an issue where Israel is the clear provocateur by initiating the incident in international waters.

But they were still in international waters. Like shuma pointed out, why didn't they just guide them to a different port? why was it necessary to storm the ships when they could have just created a path for a different route using their Navy?

It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".

But from what I heard, there was no attempt to have them go to a different port. They could have easily used their navy to block the ships path, which they didn't and either way, they should have waited until they were in their jurisdiction.

It amazes me that people are defending this action.
It shouldn't, but it does.

Um, that's exactly what a "blockade" is.

Controlling traffic by blocking the path.

Kanluwen wrote:It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".

I would love to see your amazing inside sources that give you even the slightest bit of backing to make a statement like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Um, that's exactly what a "blockade" is.

Controlling traffic by blocking the path.

block·ade   [blo-keyd] Show IPA noun, verb,-ad·ed, -ad·ing.
–noun
1.
the isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit.
2.
any obstruction of passage or progress: We had difficulty in getting through the blockade of bodyguards.
3.
Pathology. interruption or inhibition of a normal physiological signal, as a nerve impulse or a heart muscle–contraction impulse.

Technically blockades by sea simply include warnings and then firing lines (you don't block ships with ships as that will almost certainly cause the destruction of your own ship as well). That said this was not a blockade as it occurred in international waters. This was an aggressive and illegal act by intention. They weren't at the (illegal) blockade line.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.

And.
It.
Never.
Did.
They.
Were.
In.
International.
Waters.

Yes they were, not denying that. However it was PLAIN AS DAY what they intended to do. Looking at this from a military perspective, I'm willing to bet they ordered the strike when they did mainly cause they wanted to strike during the night in the hopes that less people would be awake thus makeing the job of the boarding party much easier due to a longer approach before being discovered and more people sleeping and caught unaware.

ShumaGorath wrote:
And next time some dude with a gun enters your home I hope you don't expect any sympathy from people reading about the incident when he gets shot. .

Fixed your typo!