Jump to content

Israel butchers civilians in international waters


Recommended Posts

The psychology of the situation was simply all wrong, you send in a about a dozen men to the several hundred on the boat, mix in fear and animosity, the absence of any sense of legitimacy for the boarding, and perhaps a belief on the part of those determined to defend the vessel that they could succeed and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

EXACTLY!

 

Israeli ****ed up in their judgement here and it has lead to a massacre and horrible PR stain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's what they were doing, policing the naval approaches, and they did order the ships to stop first. I don't see what difference it makes whether it was 20 km or 80 miles from Gaza. Hamas doesn't recognize the Oslo accords btw.

If they're within the 20km people wouldn't be having as much of a problem, but given they were WELL outside that boundary then it's like stopping a family vehicle at the end of your street with a four person family inside, to check it for guns because you don't want them to shoot up your garage.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate?

 

 

 

if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force. "do what is necessary to protect yourselves and your fellow police officers." is all kinda arguments as to why the israelis should or should not have been on those boats in the first place, but you is bugnuts if you thinks the individual soldiers were unjustified in firing on those poor civilians who were attacking with knives and metal bars. international crisis be damned: if Gromnir is the israeli commander, we tells our men that their first priority is to protect selves and their squaddies. you is on a boat, in the dark, being attacked by an unknown number of knife-wielding adversaries. you perhaps expected the israelis to use those paintball guns they were carrying to defend selves?

 

again, am not suggesting that the israeli solution o' boarding the flotilla ships as they did were politically advisable, but once on-board, we cannot see how you fault the israelis for defending themselves.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

Well, the bodycount has been lowered to 9 (according to Israeli sources). Not as much as 20, but still, definitely a screw up by Israel. They've flat out admitted it.

 

Interesting note: North Korea blows up a merchant ship, killing almost 50 people; nobody cares. Israeli commandos shoot a bunch of dudes who attack them; international bat**** craziness ensues.

 

International headlines, both Koreas preparing for warfare, a 12-page thread... No one cares?

 

 

I think all comparisons to burglaries or maritime law are not really, well, comparable here. Israel well knew what they were doing. There was nothing illegal on board that ship. What they didn't except was to be repelled, and thus probably had no orders given in case of a violent backlash. History has shown that Israeli commandos have a shoot first, ask later-policy and this time it all went to hell. A huge blunder to be sure.

 

Time will tell what the repercussions are. I guess it depends on how much the US values their relationship with Turkey.

 

 

Actually Gromnir, they could have just backed down. We just don't know enough of the situation to call the killings justified, especially in the light of how everyone knows Mossad works.

Edited by heathen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Gromnir, they could have just backed down. We just don't know enough of the situation to call the killings justified, especially in the light of how everyone knows Mossad works.

 

eh? where is they to back down to exactly. the israelis is on a ship at sea. they has been dropped off by helicopter. where is the safety to which they could easily back down to? some o' you folks is being genuine unreasonable.

 

again, am not suggesting that this were the best considered plan, but to take calax example...

 

"it's like stopping a family vehicle at the end of your street with a four person family inside, to check it for guns because you don't want them to shoot up your garage."

 

once the folks in the family car start attacking the cop with metal bars and knives, does we ask why the policeman defended self with lethal force? no. hell no. 'course the israelis had even less opportunity to back down as they were on a ship at sea.

 

again, we ain't suggesting that this were a well considered venture by the israelis, and they shoulda' contemplated the possibility that not all ships would come along peaceably (apparently five o' the flotilla ships did surrender without incident.) israel tends to ignore the political implications o' their actions...which is understandable to some degree. nevertheless, this don't appear to have been the best considered plan for dealing with folks who were clearly attempting to create an international incident by running the gaza blockade. unlike most folks, what bothers Gromnir most is that the israelis put their soldiers in an extremely dangerous position without seeming to consider what would happen if things went to $&%#. poor planning results in injured israelis and dead civvies.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
again, am not suggesting that the israeli solution o' boarding the flotilla ships as they did were politically advisable, but once on-board, we cannot see how you fault the israelis for defending themselves.

Ahh, but that's how it goes, isn't it? Once the government plays its part (boarding the ship) then it's all on the soldiers' shoulders, who in turn can always play the "self-defense" card. Then even the individuals with the best of intentions and the best of judgement can easily overlook the fact that it's a "bad political decision". Additionally, in this case it doesn't even qualify as self-defense, imo. It was at best "bad crowd control". Very bad. At best.

 

what bothers Gromnir most is that the israelis put their soldiers in an extremely dangerous position without seeming to consider what would happen if things went to $&%#. poor planning results in injured israelis and dead civvies.

This would be spot on IF both sides of the incident were trained & equipped soldiers. The end result gives a pretty good idea about the "danger levels" for both sides (injuries vs. deaths).

"Save often!" -The Inquisitor

 

"Floss regularly!" -also The Inquisitor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally, because Israel is the bogeyman du jour for da kidz, they all kicked off as soon as this was announced. Some of us were sanguine.

 

I've seen the footage. The commandoes rapelling to the deck were attacked by a mob armed with iron bars. Were I the section commander I would have authorised the use of firearms. The evidence will not persuade the haters - it never does. I would ask, though, just whose tune they are dancing to (answer for the dull - Iran / Hamas / The Muslim Brotherhood).

 

I'm not a pro-Israeli stooge. My country was at war with Israeli terrorists in the late 40's. But, and... but. Memories are fading. Forget the Balfour declaration and Zionist settlers. That's all window-dressing. The rapidly fading elephant in the room is the industrial extermination, on an epic scale, of six million people. Just think how that forges a national psyche. The Jews of Europe tried reason in the 30's and 40's and it led to the gas chamber. Never Again isn't just a slogan, it's woven into Israel's DNA. They see the Palestinian question directly through this prism.

 

Has this turned Israel into something sometimes unpleasant and arrogant? This is a reasonable point of view. But the Che Guevara T-shirt crowd beating their chests and crying foul need to (a) learn some history (b) learn to see stuf from the other guy's POV and © wonder how the other side would act. A more astute critic might ask if the 'other side' is as homogenous as I've suggested. The answer is yes and no, but when it comes to the mission to undermine and destroy Israel I'd say pretty much yes.

 

Big picture time: It boils down to this: like it or not, Netanyahu has his finger on a nuclear trigger, reined in by the USA. Ahmadinejad does not. The plan is to get his finger on one reined in by nobody. Who knows if this flotilla is the anarchist throwing a grenade in Sarajevo moment? I'm not saying don't protest against Israel, or criticise them. Just prioritise. These guys aren't dug in, full of fear and suspicion, for fun.

 

Cheers

MC

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
again, am not suggesting that the israeli solution o' boarding the flotilla ships as they did were politically advisable, but once on-board, we cannot see how you fault the israelis for defending themselves.

Ahh, but that's how it goes, isn't it? Once the government plays its part (boarding the ship) then it's all on the soldiers' shoulders, who in turn can always play the "self-defense" card. Then even the individuals with the best of intentions and the best of judgement can easily overlook the fact that it's a "bad political decision". Additionally, in this case it doesn't even qualify as self-defense, imo. It was at best "bad crowd control". Very bad. At best.

 

what bothers Gromnir most is that the israelis put their soldiers in an extremely dangerous position without seeming to consider what would happen if things went to $&%#. poor planning results in injured israelis and dead civvies.

This would be spot on IF both sides of the incident were trained & equipped soldiers. The end result gives a pretty good idea about the "danger levels" for both sides (injuries vs. deaths).

 

 

all of which complete ignores the fact that the knife-wielding peace activists attacked the soldiers. the danger level to the peace activists were in the control o' the peace activists, as is evidenced by the results on the five other flotilla boats.

 

even so, the israelis shoulda' anticipated peace activist stupidity/aggression. am not seeing how the end result could be a genuine surprise to anybody.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty.

I had no idea.

 

Nevertheless, if you wanted to inspect the cargo of the convoy, why would you send warships, helicopters and heavily armed commandos in the middle of the night? Does that really sound like someone who wants to innocently inspect your ship's cargo?

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to post
Share on other sites
These weren't any "peace activists". This was a Turkish islamist group intentionally creating an incident, in collusion with Turkey's Muslim Brotherhood government.

 

Are you being facetious or do you really believe what you just wrote?

You really need to educate yourself better.

 

There were 2 greek boats in the humanitarian flotilla. Were they transporting terrorists as well? Common, man...

 

It's possible though that some extremists must have infiltrated the humanitarian group (see what happened on one of the boats).

Edited by ramza

"Ooo, squirrels, Boo! I know I saw them! Quick, throw nuts!" -Minsc

"I am a well-known racist in the Realms! Elves? Dwarves? Ha! Kill'em all! Humans rule! -Me

 

Volourn will never grow up, he's like the Black Peter Pan, here to tell you that it might be great to always be a child, but everybody around is gonna hate it. :p
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to admit, I got an ironic smile out of Israel saying that their commandos were armed with paint guns in practically the same breath as they were saying the fleet was an Al Qaida and Hamas aligned armada of hate, and probably smuggling weaponry as well as the admitted components of mass construction.

 

[revised scenario]

OK, so Sweden has just declared war on Denmark, what happens now and how is that relevant to anything?

 

Oh yeah...

 

a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty.

Post Proof or Retract.

Edited by Zoraptor
Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate?

 

 

 

if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force.

 

Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sweden declared war on Denmark I guess both sides armed services would go on strike and a peace conference would be announced before the first tank reached a border post.

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate?

 

 

 

if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force.

 

Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas.

 

Krezzie, your Tactical appreciation and experience comes via a PS3 I suppose.

Edited by Monte Carlo

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
all of which complete ignores the fact that the knife-wielding peace activists attacked the soldiers. the danger level to the peace activists were in the control o' the peace activists, as is evidenced by the results on the five other flotilla boats.

Which comes down to what I said; we can easily overlook the fact that (say with me) the boat was boarded in international waters, by illegal means, and the people on the boat who weren't tied to / bound by any government except their nationality simply defended themselves, by reducing the whole affair to a "soldiers did what they had to do" argument.

"Save often!" -The Inquisitor

 

"Floss regularly!" -also The Inquisitor

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nemo. Are you an economist? Because they too are more comfortable arguing about what might or should have happened as opposed to what actually happened.

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Gromnir, they could have just backed down. We just don't know enough of the situation to call the killings justified, especially in the light of how everyone knows Mossad works.

 

eh? where is they to back down to exactly. the israelis is on a ship at sea. they has been dropped off by helicopter. where is the safety to which they could easily back down to? some o' you folks is being genuine unreasonable.

 

 

Surrendered. Dropped their weapons. Why not? ;)

 

 

Kind of a cheap shot, that one about the PS3 Monte. We're all armchair generals / politicians here.

Edited by heathen
Link to post
Share on other sites
a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty.

I had no idea.

 

Nevertheless, if you wanted to inspect the cargo of the convoy, why would you send warships, helicopters and heavily armed commandos in the middle of the night? Does that really sound like someone who wants to innocently inspect your ship's cargo?

 

is kinda sad that as a citizen o' sweden you probably got more rights when dealing with the U.S. while on Amercian soil than you does on the high seas. thanks to treaties, you don't even get the benefit o' "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" when faced with an inspection by authorities.

 

even so, am in agreement that the israeli operation were not well considered. commandos dropping down from helicopters in the dead of night? what is the likelihood that at least one idiot peace activist would gets trigger happy out of fear or anger? once the israelis were attacked, the end results were predictable... and it cannot have been complete unanticipated that the israelis would be attacked.

 

'course, it typical requires the stoopidity o' multiple people to create a charlie fox scenario like the one that is the focus o' this thread. am always a bit surprised that such stoopidity is rarely contemplated until after the corpses is counted and the wounds is tended.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Nemo. Are you an economist? Because they too are more comfortable arguing about what might or should have happened as opposed to what actually happened.

I wouldn't think I could smile reading through this thread. Thanks for that. :)

 

Economist? Not by a long shot. Though I thought I was one of the few here who were talking about what happened, instead of hypothetical scenarios... Sure you haven't confused me with someone else? ;)

"Save often!" -The Inquisitor

 

"Floss regularly!" -also The Inquisitor

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I read that article, the dudes on the boats attacked the commandos. If you attack a set of commandos, you better well expect to be blown to whatever hell you believe in. If the commandos were defending themselves, they really did nothing wrong. That doesn't explain the commandos being in the boats, but the so-called "massacre" doesn't seem like much of one.

 

So it'd be OK if the police in America opened live fire on, say, tea party protesters who hurled rocks or tried to take their guns right? An eye for an eye is neoconservative policy these days, right mate?

 

 

 

if the tea party protesters were attacking the police with knives and metal bars, we would expect the police to respond with deadly force.

 

Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas.

 

...

 

HA!

 

it may seem inappropriate, but your observation has provided us with the first genuine mirth we were able to appreciate in regards to this incident. tasers and tear gas?

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas.

O.K. maybe not tasers, but I'm pretty sure, being one of the best equipped armies in the world, they could come up with something better than paintball guns and switching to their live ammunition sidearms at the sight of *gasp* a knife. Like it's totally unpredictable. In a crowd.

"Save often!" -The Inquisitor

 

"Floss regularly!" -also The Inquisitor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have to admit, I got an ironic smile out of Israel saying that their commandos were armed with paint guns in practically the same breath as they were saying the fleet was an Al Qaida and Hamas aligned armada of hate, and probably smuggling weaponry as well as the admitted components of mass construction.

 

[revised scenario]

OK, so Sweden has just declared war on Denmark, what happens now and how is that relevant to anything?

 

Oh yeah...

 

a foreign warship may board and inspect on high seas pursuant to "right of visit" and treaty.

Post Proof or Retract.

 

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agr...nclos/part7.htm

 

scroll down and find right of visit.

 

you is of course free to look for individual treaties as each is unique.

 

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instrumen...8_high_seas.pdf

 

is numerous provisions in the aforementioned that reference the superseding power o' treaties.

 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/docum...curityMyths.pdf

 

please scroll down to "myth 4"

 

as for the sweden scenario...

 

ZOOM... right over your head.

 

Don't be a ****, you'd expect them to use tasers and tear gas.

O.K. maybe not tasers, but I'm pretty sure, being one of the best equipped armies in the world, they could come up with something better than paintball guns and switching to their live ammunition sidearms at the sight of *gasp* a knife. Like it's totally unpredictable. In a crowd.

 

...

 

but you don't see a problem with using tear gas... on a boat? btw, is the tear gas to be used before or after the israelis shimmy down their ropes from the helicopter?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps everybody should have a westlaw subscription... would make these kinda posts much easier for Gromnir.

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...