Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

This is I believe the second time you have tried to belittle the commandos. I think you should stop it. I think you are the only one who is trying to portray them as poor little victims. They were attacked and responded in kind. It may be the reason that there were only nine dead because they were the best of the best. Possibly, a less trained group would have just started spraying bullets everywhere and we could have hundreds dead. Mocking people who serve their country is never acceptable in my book. I expect better from you.

 

hum... pardon my ignorance, but what is a "green area"? You can hit people in the place where they recycle?

 

I don't get the impression that he's belittling the commandos, Snook. He's belittling Israeli rhetoric surrounding the incident.

 

That and he points out how preposterous it is to see the commandos as victims.

It seems the irony in Ragusa's post was not perceived as such.

 

q.e.d. ... or to be unambiguous and explicit: Cara and Drew both got it.

 

Here is the full 6 minutes of audio, including several warnings to the aid flotilla, and the 'Go back to Auschwitz' comment. There's also an interesting bit where a woman on the aid flotilla explains to the Israeli navy that their blockade is illegal (despite not being declared as such by the UN Security Council) and that they have no right to stop the flotilla.

... Gee, I've never seen anything like this on Cops.

Drunk Hillbilly: You don't have the right to arrest me! Get yer hands off me! I'll sue!
Officer (restraining Drunk Hillbilly): Sir, you're under arrest for driving under the influence. Do you have any weapons you would like to inform me of?
Drunk Hillbilly: My **** is a weapon! Get yer hands off me!

 

The audio is contested. I'm not willing to completely believe it yet.

 

Forces which are trained to restrain are taught using a traffic light system, green, amber and red - relating to areas of the body which are least likely to cause death and vice versa.

green areas being fleshy or painful areas, like the back of the leg.

amber being a little more dangerous but for application of more force against a resisting person, such as the kidneys and the chest.

red areas being last resort, like head, neck and groin.

as for rag's post, I didnt consider it to be Ironic, it was just sarcastic.

"According to a news report from the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, Arraf suggests the audio of her that appeared in the clip came from an earlier exchange between her and Israeli forces, but she admits she "could not be sure" she didn't repeat her assertion during exchanges with the IDF during the raid."

so, she is admitting that she said what she says in the audio clip. could it be, that in actual fact the audio is from the challenger one and not the mavi marmara? that these things were actually said just clipped into a single file so that the world can hear it?

 

That's the basic contention of the clip -- until more is available I'm just not willing to get off the fence on this one.

 

for some reason, I dont think were going to get that information T2

 

Unfortunately, with only audio recording and people's claims, it's impossible to tell. The only way to be sure would be for a video-audio recording of someone involved in the broadcast. Even then, I'm not sure you could say what the other people said was 100% accurate.

Anyway, the point is, I don't think it's contested that the Israelis issued warnings. What they may have involved, and what response they provoked, may be contested, but I haven't heard anyone saying there weren't any warnings.

 

That Israel issued a warning is not disputed -- but T2, at least, appears to be disputing the idea that they issued anything even remotely resembling the proper amount of them.

 

why should they need more then one? I dont give kids climbing into my back garden more the one before I turn on the hose

 

What does that have to do with anything? Israel didn't use a hose. They went from that warning to a forceful boarding complete with tear gas, skipping the other peaceful options that are standard operating procedure for pretty much the entire rest of the world -- and they did it before the "kids" even entered their garden.

 

MS 'Exodus' and what the IDF could learn from the Royal Navy

From Haaretz:

So the Brits over the duration of almost three years stopped 60 vessels with passengers aplenty and killed six people, arguably because they gave their commandos ... training in brawling.

In contrast, the IDF sent in their elite trigger pullers fully armed. From what I read some had these paint ball guns (with CS rounds?) and pistols. Since arguably the Israelis didn't send the rest unarmed, 'some' means that the rest was normally armed - and that probably one in four or three (i.e. one per squad) had these paint ball guns. To me that doesn't suggest particular restraint. Instead it suggests they used paint ball guns as a squad weapon - it would then fill the machine gun role as a primary offensive weapon (i.e. it appears they used the paint ball guns as a bullet hose for 'fire and manoeuvre'). To me that doesn't sound like restraint at all but like an aggressive approach. That would be very much in tune with the general posture adopted by the Israelis over these ships.

They killed ten people in one boarding only because the ship was crowded and the passengers got rowdy? Arguably the risks inherent in arming the troops on such a mission manifested themselves. What does that say about Israeli professional competence? It was far from unpredictable that something like that would happen.

 

arguably the isralies issued their first warning the instant the ships left port.

lets bare in mind that there were no such things as "non lethal" weapons back then, if there were, Im sure they would have carried them.

your compareing to very different situations, Jihad and hatred didnt factor into the immigrants on the ships the royal navy stopped, I'd also like to point out that the ships of the royal navy were a little more intimdating back then, as opposed to the ships used by the IDF.

I dont think the article youve linked to really supports your "evil Israel" stance

"avoid violence" doesnt sound like an assult to me.

"came in with hardly any weapons", the tear gas would have done the job.... if the "activists" hadnt had the foresight to bring a bunch of gasmasks with them. your average group of peace activists would have these, it is obvious that they had prepared to repel the Isralies well in advance.

the activists clearly had the intention to kill the Isralies, and I do judge it by the outcome, the Isralies were attacked first, 10 men severly injured, 2 near death. Isralies open fire to save their own lives.

the focus of the media and the aid groups seems to be on the Isralies shooting people dead.
tell me, if the Isralies had used knives and stabbed the activists, they have been the bad guys then? because noone seems to mind the Isralies being stabbed by the activists.

 

Indeed. Undeniably, "non lethal" weapons at that time were totally unheard of.

​

Assumption: That is so because they then still called a baton a baton?

You're being presumptuous. Zionist fervour (or hatred against the British), as indicated by the fighting on the Exodus, appears to me to be very much equivalent to any other ideological attitude that might have motivated the people on the Mavi Marmara to their resistance.

What are you going to tell me next: That unlike Zionist rage Jihadi fury is infinitely more dangerous, which is why we ought to discount the precedent of the Exodus?

 

I was happy just sitting back reading the thread but I have to comment on this:

You have the nerve to criticize Ragusa's comparison for being irrelevant after posting your "garden hose" bit... Ragusa's point has merits as he is comparing two situations that show many similarities (enforcing a blockade and involving the military when dealing with civilians) and doesn't come up with a back yard metaphor the way you did.

As far as your comment on "Jihad and hatred" that is just preposterous. I could point out that criticizing the peace protesters for being religious fanatics is not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. I could also point out that this comment of yours reeks of bigotry (the hatred bit).

The human rights activists on the ships were not crusaders or people fighting a holy war. What evidence support that claim?

There were probably Muslims on board those ships but that doesn't mean there were terrorists aboard. Following your logic the Red Crescent is a terrorist organization made of Jihadist fanatics because its flag bears a Muslim symbol. If that isn't bigotry then I don't know what it is -contrary to what you're implying not every Muslim is a Jihadist with a deeply rooted hatred of the West.

That is actually a very good point although nothing tends to prove that the people on the Marvi Marmara were motivated by religious fervour (they didn't represent a church or a unified religious group and their action is defined as being political not religious).

But (correct me if I'm wrong) I think that by "ideological attitude" Ragusa is not referring to religious fervour or religious fanaticism.

 

I'm wondering, again, what 'other standard peaceful options' you're talking about. Considering we have at least the claim that they made the standard number of warnings, and good reason not to fire a warning shot (forget that it likely wouldn't work, imagine the PR at 'Israeli Navy tries to sink Aid Flotilla').

I think this was probably the biggest difference. The Israelis are known for a lot of stuff, but I don't think they have much experience as a naval force. Certainly not nearly as much as the UK did at the time.

This is also a pretty big one, but as far as the PR is concerned, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. Remember that the journalists are already complaining that they were 'beaten' while trying to 'protect' other passangers (from similarly provoked beatings?). If the Israelis had taken the ship without a single death, but had beaten a hundred men black and blue (nevermind the lack of serious injuries as a result), they'd still be crucified in the press.

All in all, though, I don't agree with your final assessment. Again, you are assuming a level of aggression that just isn't supported by the evidence.

 

Umm ... what? "No firearms" does not equate "no deadly weapons."