Israel

[Calax]

No, but it would stand to reason that shooting the chest would be significantly easier than the head given that the chest is what, four time larger than the head? While a headshot MIGHT be a oneshot kill, the impact of a bullet on your body would significantly slow you down no matter where you were hit.

 

And how is a commando's shooting style going to be different than your average soldier? I mean they both have the same goal, kill the other dude, but it's not like a commando is going to try to be this guy:

 

 

just because he's got a little pin that says "commando!"

 

Do you have anything to say about IDF rules of engagement pertaining to their use of deadly force? Do you have anything to say about IDF commando conditioning techniques with regards to high-stress situations?

Not really, but if that was their standard response (Oh darn, we they put up resistance when we were using non-leathal weapons. GET THE BIG GUNS AND KILL 'EM ALL!) then they really need to go back to the drawing board.

[213374U]

No, but it would stand to reason that shooting the chest would be significantly easier than the head given that the chest is what, four time larger than the head? While a headshot MIGHT be a oneshot kill, the impact of a bullet on your body would significantly slow you down no matter where you were hit.

There's simply no delicate way to say this... you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

For starters, you don't know if those who got shot in the head had only received those wounds, i.e. they were shot in the chest/extremities AND the head, with the headshot being the ultimate cause of death. You are also operating from the assumption that the commandos were aiming for the head from the get go (I suspect you are fixed on the idea that the soldiers performed a few extrajudicial killings for the hell of it) -- I'd like you to present evidence of this, and then reconcile that evidence with the fact that there were "dozens" of wounded, and "only" five deaths attributed to headshots.

 

Further, all gunfire wounds treated were from 9mm rounds, a reasonably effective cartridge... unless one is using jacketed ammunition, the only one legally available to commandos given that hollow points are banned for military use. So it's perfectly possible that they shot for the chest first, failed to drop the attacker and had to keep firing.

 

 

And how is a commando's shooting style going to be different than your average soldier? I mean they both have the same goal, kill the other dude

Right, because the situations a regular infantryman is going to be in are the same a commando will face, so their training regimes are the same. This also extends to hours spent at the shooting range, time spent familiarising with different combinations of weapons and ballistic effects in different environments, body armor, stress, CQC techniques, etc.

 

Yep, in fact, the only difference between a commando and your run of the mill grunt is a pin on the chest of the former. There is no such thing as "special forces", just goons with guns. Or so says Calax, self-appointed expert on "semi-realistic military fiction".

 

 

Yeah. If you can't find it on YT, it doesn't exist, right?

 

Maybe you should try and wrap your mind around the fact that video games are not a reliable source and get a bit more real world know-how of these things before jumping to conclusions? Just sayin'

 

 

Not really, but if that was their standard response (Oh darn, we they put up resistance when we were using non-leathal weapons. GET THE BIG GUNS AND KILL 'EM ALL!) then they really need to go back to the drawing board.

That IS the MO for law enforcement worldwide. In general terms, if there is sufficient reason to believe that the aggressor is about to use or is already using deadly force against the officer(s) or bystanders, then deadly force is warranted right back. Deal with it.

 

And by the way, 9mm guns aren't "big", at all. The desperate hyperbole only underlines your weak footing.

Edited June 17, 2010 by 213374U

[Calax]

And your asinine assertion that I think that the only way the Commando's went in was with headshots is undermining yours. If you look back I told Wals that I was basing most of my information off of how it was presented here, in that only headshots were mentioned, making it sound like these guys had made executions against their target.

 

And again, you're also making the same assumption that I was in that you're making it sound as if these guys were able to pick their shots from a range, when the videos show that they were basically in a hand to hand melee fight. Now I don't know about you, but as a rational person I feel like if somebody is beating at me with a stick, I'm gonna do my best stop the beating, rather than point at other dude 5 feet away and try to blow his head off.

 

I just love how you're the one who's crying your eyes out about the fact that I'm saying that my knowledge isn't exactly complete, and yet you offer nothing to support your own points.

 

And while the MO of most law enforcement agencies is to switch to heavier weapons, they usually are A) within their own jurisdiction, and not acting upon citizens/agents of a foreign power B) within the legal bounds to initiate any operation and C) Not attached to the military except under extreme circumstances.

 

Also you completely mistook my link. I wasn't saying "thats how it is" I was saying that if Commandos went for headshots mainly (like you seem to be saying) Then they'd try to be the guy in the link, all fourishy and able to mow their way through a squad of guys in 10 seconds because they've practice so much.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Calax

[213374U]

And your asinine assertion that I think that the only way the Commando's went in was with headshots is undermining yours. If you look back I told Wals that I was basing most of my information off of how it was presented here, in that only headshots were mentioned, making it sound like these guys had made executions against their target.

Looks like you are starting to lose track. Feeling dizzy?

 

Take a step back. Breathe in deeply. Now, either the commandos shot for the head on purpose or they didn't. If they didn't, how exactly were they "executing" anyone? Now, if they were actually going for the head, were they doing so from the moment they boarded the vessel? Was this before or after they were assaulted themselves? Is there any distinction in Israeli law between aiming for (and hitting) the head or the chest? Answer those questions first, then based on the answers, go ahead and try to make your case that the dead by headshot were "executions". Also, do read a few posts back, where I explained that point blank IS NOT execution-style.

 

PROTIP: "the press said it was an execution, I'm just echoing what they said!" is not a valid defense. You are expected to have formed your own informed opinions before advancing conspiracy theories.

 

 

And again, you're also making the same assumption that I was in that you're making it sound as if these guys were able to pick their shots from a range, when the videos show that they were basically in a hand to hand melee fight.

Uh... the videos showed only parts. The boarding part, mostly. But they did eventually take control of the whole ship. The initial landing may have degenerated into a fistfight, but that doesn't fit with how most of the wounded weren't by contact shots but simply close range fire -- consistent with the cramped environment that is a ship. Once more, if it isn't on YT, it didn't happen, yes?

 

 

Now I don't know about you, but as a rational person I feel like if somebody is beating at me with a stick, I'm gonna do my best stop the beating, rather than point at other dude 5 feet away and try to blow his head off.

Yeah, you don't know about me. And you don't know about the commandos for that matter, that's your problem. You are essentially pulling stuff out of your ass and expecting everyone to nod in agreement, based on whatever basic training you got as a naval radar operator and the few Tom Clancy novels you may have ogled. Sorry, I ain't buying it.

 

 

I just love how you're the one who's crying your eyes out about the fact that I'm saying that my knowledge isn't exactly complete, and yet you offer nothing to support your own points.

Hmm? What do you want me to back, exactly? I'm offering plausible, easy to verify counterpoints to your 100% unsupported assumptions, estimations and "common sense" suppositions, based on what limited knowledge I have been imparted by people who have actually been on the line.

 

 

And while the MO of most law enforcement agencies is to switch to heavier weapons, they usually are A) within their own jurisdiction, and not acting upon citizens/agents of a foreign power B) within the legal bounds to initiate any operation and C) Not attached to the military except under extreme circumstances.

LOL -- 9mm isn't "heavier" at all, it's the basic sidearm caliber for just about any police officer in the world (save the UK, crazy unarmed bastards).

 

A) According to international law, a country that has declared a blockade has a right to board any ships attempting to violate said blockade. So the commandos WERE within their own jurisdiction. You must also have missed the post where I explained this. ADHD? The idea that the nationality of the perps has any relevance would be laughable were it not so widely extended.

 

B) and C) are the same thing, a naval blockade is an act of war and therefore responsibility for enforcement falls on the military.

 

Want to discuss the legality of the blockade? Go right ahead, you won't see me arguing either for or against, as there doesn't seem to be a uniform opinion even among legal experts. The fact remains that, according to the Israeli side, whose orders the commandos are bound to obey, they had every right to be there and do what they did.

 

 

Also you completely mistook my link. I wasn't saying "thats how it is" I was saying that if Commandos went for headshots mainly (like you seem to be saying) Then they'd try to be the guy in the link, all fourishy and able to mow their way through a squad of guys in 10 seconds because they've practice so much.

No, it's you who doesn't understand. Your argument goes like this: "this is some crazy japanese game in which some dude has mad aiming skills -- nothing in this game is to be taken seriously. Therefore, nobody IRL could have similar skills". Even disregarding the fallacies present therein (I'm leaving those for you to figure on your own), the bottom line is that you are using video games as a basis for an argument in your analysis of a real-world event. Do you really need me to go into details as to how ridiculous this is? Edited June 17, 2010 by 213374U

[Calax]

Well, as you pointed out, I don't know you. So arguing from authority as if you're some sort of omniscient god doesn't exactly fly. Particularly if you're going to try and force other people to bring in trustworthy sources to refute points you probably just yanked from your rear end. Honestly it feels like you're just trying to make yourself feel big by ignoring the fact that I admitted I'm fallible and that what I say might not be necessarily true when I could have told you that in my weapons training we did X, even though it was a lie.

 

But hey, if you can think it it MUST be true right?

 

Congratulations you're the VERY first person tossed on my ignore list.

[Meshugger]

Who here actually has any military training? And i mean in terms of marine or infantry, so naval training at a submarine doesn't count. I am just curious, based on the arguments that i've read in this thread about what kind of code of conduct the israeli commandos should have.

 

I, for one, have had it. Who else? (Krav Maga was actually fun practice)

 

//EDIT: Just realised that Visceris was dead, my bad

Edited June 17, 2010 by Meshugger

[213374U]

Well, as you pointed out, I don't know you. So arguing from authority as if you're some sort of omniscient god doesn't exactly fly. Particularly if you're going to try and force other people to bring in trustworthy sources to refute points you probably just yanked from your rear end. Honestly it feels like you're just trying to make yourself feel big by ignoring the fact that I admitted I'm fallible and that what I say might not be necessarily true when I could have told you that in my weapons training we did X, even though it was a lie.

 

But hey, if you can think it it MUST be true right?

Arguing from authority, am I?

 

You have it backwards, bub. I have not made a single judgment call regarding this incident -- unlike you, I'm not happy to suggest conspiracy theories without having all the facts in, and I at least have the courtesy of extending presumption of innocence to servicemen regarding the possibility of extrajudicial killings, a very serious charge. Accusations of that caliber are, I think, not something to be thrown around as frivolously as you have. All I have done is, based on what I have been taught, show where your arguments fall apart (it's worth noting that you have not made a single rebuttal of any of the counterpoints I made). Man up and deal with it. "Oh, but I admit I'm fallible" just doesn't cut it -- of course you are fallible, you don't need to clarify that as if there was ever any doubt. That doesn't give you carte blanche to speculate wildly, and then throw a tantrum when people call you on your bull****.

 

 

Congratulations you're the VERY first person tossed on my ignore list.

Oh, my. Is that special like losing your virginity? I feel kinda naughty right now.

 

 

Who here actually has any military training? And i mean in terms of marine or infantry, so naval training at a submarine doesn't count. I am just curious, based on the arguments that i've read in this thread about what kind of code of conduct the israeli commandos should have.

 

I, for one, have had it. Who else? (Krav Maga was actually fun practice)

You received KM instruction in the army? Wow. Anyway, KM stuff is kinda nasty so I've actually been told that you're better off not doing some things outside of a wartime situation, which I'm not going to find myself in anytime soon. IMO it's just not worth landing your ass in jail and paying an arm and a leg for damages just to teach some punk a lesson. Depending on the law of your country, YMMV though. Hapkido has some useful stuff too.

 

 

//EDIT: Just realised that Visceris was dead, my bad

[Morgoth]

A bit old but I stumbled over this today.

Israeli Professor:

[Gorgon]

And we could annihilate them in return, if I wasn't for the fact that even then the US would not withdraw their support.

 

No seriously, this is just one crazy man, it doesn't signify anything.

[Meshugger]

Who here actually has any military training? And i mean in terms of marine or infantry, so naval training at a submarine doesn't count. I am just curious, based on the arguments that i've read in this thread about what kind of code of conduct the israeli commandos should have.

 

I, for one, have had it. Who else? (Krav Maga was actually fun practice)

You received KM instruction in the army? Wow. Anyway, KM stuff is kinda nasty so I've actually been told that you're better off not doing some things outside of a wartime situation, which I'm not going to find myself in anytime soon. IMO it's just not worth landing your ass in jail and paying an arm and a leg for damages just to teach some punk a lesson. Depending on the law of your country, YMMV though. Hapkido has some useful stuff too.

 

It was just the basics. Pretty on how to deal the deathblow as fast as possible on dummies, there was no training on real people

 

 

//EDIT: Just realised that Visceris was dead, my bad

 

I made a reference to him serving in the navy at nuclear submarine. I removed the reference after finding out.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Meshugger

[Moose]

I wonder who'd win Ireland vs Israel. It's a shame they're not neighbours.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Moose

[Walsingham]

I wonder who'd win Ireland vs Israel. It's a shame they're not neighbours.

 

Hmm... A nation with a tiny appendix of an armed force, supplemented by a bunch of maudlin psychopaths, against a nation almost entirely focussed on war since its inception? Could be fun to watch. For about ten minutes.

[Calax]

I wonder who'd win Ireland vs Israel. It's a shame they're not neighbours.

 

Hmm... A nation with a tiny appendix of an armed force, supplemented by a bunch of maudlin psychopaths, against a nation almost entirely focussed on war since its inception? Could be fun to watch. For about ten minutes.

Palestine vs Ireland would be a better match up.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I'm too lazy to read this armchair commando discussion.

 

I don't believe either of the sides is innocent in this everlasting conflict so the available options are either: picking a side or staying neutral.

 

I support Israel because:

a) I admire their perseverance and will to fight (Israel has essentially been at war in one form or another since day one)

b) I'm inclined to dislike their enemies by default and we've had nothing but good relations with them

[Walsingham]

I wonder who'd win Ireland vs Israel. It's a shame they're not neighbours.

 

Hmm... A nation with a tiny appendix of an armed force, supplemented by a bunch of maudlin psychopaths, against a nation almost entirely focussed on war since its inception? Could be fun to watch. For about ten minutes.

Palestine vs Ireland would be a better match up.

 

Oooh. You're dead right there. That would be interesting.

[Orogun01]

I wonder who'd win Ireland vs Israel. It's a shame they're not neighbours.

 

Hmm... A nation with a tiny appendix of an armed force, supplemented by a bunch of maudlin psychopaths, against a nation almost entirely focussed on war since its inception? Could be fun to watch. For about ten minutes.

Palestine vs Ireland would be a better match up.

Tonight on Deadliest Warrior!

[Calax]

I know they did the IRA vs. Al Quieda

[Orogun01]

Still that's just a wild jump. That a country that still has to deal with all the unrest in the area will start a war with a western nation.

[Aponez]

I support Israel because:

a) I admire their perseverance and will to fight (Israel has essentially been at war in one form or another since day one)

b) I'm inclined to dislike their enemies by default and we've had nothing but good relations with them

 

 

[Calax]

Well, as you pointed out, I don't know you. So arguing from authority as if you're some sort of omniscient god doesn't exactly fly. Particularly if you're going to try and force other people to bring in trustworthy sources to refute points you probably just yanked from your rear end. Honestly it feels like you're just trying to make yourself feel big by ignoring the fact that I admitted I'm fallible and that what I say might not be necessarily true when I could have told you that in my weapons training we did X, even though it was a lie.

 

But hey, if you can think it it MUST be true right?

Arguing from authority, am I?

 

You have it backwards, bub. I have not made a single judgment call regarding this incident -- unlike you, I'm not happy to suggest conspiracy theories without having all the facts in, and I at least have the courtesy of extending presumption of innocence to servicemen regarding the possibility of extrajudicial killings, a very serious charge. Accusations of that caliber are, I think, not something to be thrown around as frivolously as you have. All I have done is, based on what I have been taught, show where your arguments fall apart (it's worth noting that you have not made a single rebuttal of any of the counterpoints I made). Man up and deal with it. "Oh, but I admit I'm fallible" just doesn't cut it -- of course you are fallible, you don't need to clarify that as if there was ever any doubt. That doesn't give you carte blanche to speculate wildly, and then throw a tantrum when people call you on your bull****.

 

Countering wild speculation with wild speculation is hardly a very good idea. Although you didn't do that so much as simply say "Your wrong! NEENER NEENER NEENER!" like a 6 year old telling the richest kid in school he was wrong that his mom was extremely attractive. And what do you offer in return? You offer nothing even remotely better, expecting people to simply say "Well the number said that the superman isn't correct, so the number MUST be right!" Funny thing is that you say I never addressed anything you said, when a goodly portion of what you're raggin on me for was already mentioned:

 

Cal, you don't have to shoot someone in the head on purpose. You can do it by accident.

The way I was hearing it sounded more like execution style headshots that left neat little bullet wounds from a slight distance, rather than "Whups my hand slipped and blew your cheek apart... sorry dude"

 

Which you appear to have chosen to ignore, or completely twist to say what you feel I did say. Understand, I said, right there, that I was basing most of my discussion on the subject on the fact that the things were presented as execution style, rather than something done during a riot.

 

I don't know the gunshot wounds locations, nor do I know the level of trauma on the wound. I haven't seen the skulls, and neither have you (unless you'd like to enlighten us with your broad repertoire of horse riding genius). However, to suggest that somebody specifically shoots for a small location on the body that is easily missed because it's fairly swift moving, requires a bit of proof.

 

for example, in 2 minutes I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e3CWHF9GxQ

that says that they do check for shots in both the head and chest locations, but when you watch them shooting, most of the shots are in the chest area. Suggesting that they will aim first for the chest and if that's blocked they'll go for the head.

 

It's funny how you use the English language to not outright suggest something but obviously push your own opinion into peoples heads.

 

And I find this statement:

All I have done is, show where your arguments fall apart (it's worth noting that you have not made a single rebuttal of any of the counterpoints I made)

 

To be particularly funny given that you seem to have only made rebuttals that are so nebulous that it'd be impossible to rebut them.

 

I suppose you aren't arguing from authority, just arguing from being an ****.

[213374U]

Hahaha. I thought I was in your ignore list. Yeah, I kinda figured you couldn't stay away for long.

 

 

Countering wild speculation with wild speculation is hardly a very good idea. Although you didn't do that so much as simply say "Your wrong! NEENER NEENER NEENER!" like a 6 year old telling the richest kid in school he was wrong that his mom was extremely attractive. And what do you offer in return? You offer nothing even remotely better, expecting people to simply say "Well the number said that the superman isn't correct, so the number MUST be right!" Funny thing is that you say I never addressed anything you said, when a goodly portion of what you're raggin on me for was already mentioned:

No. Read the thread as many times as you need, if you can't keep track. You made an argument from ignorance (or speculated based on your lack of knowledge), and I offered counterarguments based on what I KNOW. For the nth time, WHICH point do you want to discuss in detail? The discussion cannot progress further until you refine your claims and make concrete points instead of vague suggestions. And also, please don't assume that just because your (lack of) knowledge comes from late nights with COD, everyone else is just letting their imagination fly.

 

 

Which you appear to have chosen to ignore, or completely twist to say what you feel I did say. Understand, I said, right there, that I was basing most of my discussion on the subject on the fact that the things were presented as execution style, rather than something done during a riot.

And, instead of researching the subject further, you just started imagining stuff and suggesting that the commandos had illegally executed a few activists, based on your assumption that they couldn't have scored headshots in the middle of a fistfight. And then you throw a fit when I dare question your intellectual rigour. My, I must really have hurt your ego. Get used to that feeling, and grow up already.

 

 

However, to suggest that somebody specifically shoots for a small location on the body that is easily missed because it's fairly swift moving, requires a bit of proof.

Again, re-read the thread. I didn't say they were aiming for the head from the get go -- I was simply discussing this possibility, as it's an essential part of your "illegal execution" theory. I stated that hitting a person's head at a distance of less than 2 metres with a handgun is possible. No, this doesn't require a bit of proof, if you've ever fired a gun outside of a MW installment. I've seen a training drill for this, performed under high levels of induced stress. No, I don't have a YT link for you. Not everything is in YouTube. Shocking, I know.

 

 

for example, in 2 minutes I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e3CWHF9GxQ

that says that they do check for shots in both the head and chest locations, but when you watch them shooting, most of the shots are in the chest area. Suggesting that they will aim first for the chest and if that's blocked they'll go for the head.

Um, so what? They tap the chest, then the forehead. That kinda works against your own discourse, btw, as it shows they are trained to go for the head. How does this relate to your other points anyway? Do you have any?

 

Further, the instructor clearly says, "we're going live fire for the first time", and you can see their movements aren't that quick and automatic (one guy swept by another's head with a loaded, cоcked weapon; you'd know this is a VERY serious mistake, if you had ever had any actual tactical training), so they most likely aren't done training. Unless you are suggesting that the Israeli commandos were n00bs (proof plx), how is that video representative of an actual combat situation?

 

 

To be particularly funny given that you seem to have only made rebuttals that are so nebulous that it'd be impossible to rebut them.

Such as? My citing international law and how it relates to boarding rights under blockade conditions? My claims about 9mm Para being a common law enforcement caliber, and the relative lack of stopping power of jacketed bullets? My explaining the legitimate use of deadly force in self-defense? Those are all really easy to verify, even on the Internet, if you can use sources other than YouTube. I'm not going to do your homework, though.

 

The other counterpoints cannot be made more specific until you concrete the statements those rebuttals were directed at. Get on it.

Edited June 23, 2010 by 213374U

[Calax]

*laughs at #'s man for not reading what he's linking*

[213374U]

*laughs at #'s man for not reading what he's linking*

Uh-huh. I think it's pretty clear who has reading problems here. What, too many words in my post confused you? Maybe it's time for you to go back to something you are more accustomed to? Something with less words, more pictures and that is less likely to induce embarassing seizures in you?

 

Here, this is some "semi-realistic military fiction" to get you on the right track. No need to thank me.

 

edit: just spotted this gem as I reviewed the thread:

 

It's funny how you use the English language to not outright suggest something but obviously push your own opinion into peoples heads.

Yeah, I'm an agent of the Man messing with your head! Time to up your meds, champ. Edited June 24, 2010 by 213374U

[Gorth]

On this glorious day, the twenty fourth day of the sixth month of the two thousand and tenth year according to the current calendar, yet another Israel thread went down the drain

 

Closed as it seems to have turned into a mine is bigger than yours contest... Good enough for daytime TV I suppose?