Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

I was using the term ideology broadly and in a utilitarian sense: Whether one is fervently religious as a Jew, Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Muslim - or has equally fervently held secular religions such as Zionism, Communism, Nationalism - either one has potential utility as a motive for violence.

Germany's Red Army Fraction terrorists were really vicious in their attacks. The catholic and nationalist IRA committed vicious attacks in Northern Ireland. Al Quada committed terrible acts of violence. In that company, Zionist terrorists don't much stand out for moderation. Before and during the time when the Exodus incident happened, Zionist terrorists for instance of Irgun routinely committed serious terrorist acts like blowing up the British embassy at Rome, or the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (which can be read as implying hatred for the British, or at least a motivation strong enough to commit serious acts of violence).

And anyway, as a thing that strikes me in this context, having a ship by the name 'MS Exodus' carrying immigrants to Palestine is as political an action as calling a ship MS 'Rachel Corrie', loading it with supplies and activists and sending it to Gaza.

So yes, I definitely think that there is illuminating historical precedent that we are well advised to take into account, if only to infuse some sorely lacking perspective into some readers.

... that you are willing to take into account. The Israelis are notoriously heavy handed towards Palestinians and sympathisers. If you care to undertake the effort you will arguably find plenty of testimony and even documented evidence to that effect.

Details. Don't let reality interfere with good fiction. That is a lesson Hollywood took to heart early on.

 

The "black and blue" thing is what happened on other ships. Just so you know.

WRONG. The Israeli military actually trains with other military exchanging technical procedures -and not just the American military by the way, I know for a fact that some Israeli personnel have been trained by the French army. I don't know if the Royal Navy actually trained Israeli personnel but that is not unlikely.

Saying that the Israeli military lacks training as a naval force is just preposterous.

I don't understand why some posters are so vehemently adamant on putting the blame on the human rights activists.

It seems rather sensible to expect in such an operation that the military has to create a situation that will cause the least bloodshed. Overpowering a ship filled with civilians shouldn't have resulted in deaths.

So the only explanations left is that either the boarding was sloppy or the military went trigger happy. In that case it was either a show of incompetence or a wilful demonstration of force.

That and I seriously doubt that the claim that the Israeli military is incompetent can be seriously backed up.

 

he didnt say that, he said they lacked experience

boarding the ships filled with civillians didnt result in any deaths, boarding the ship with activists armed with knives and other crude weapons, and protective gear resulted in deaths.

the boarding was sloppy, this has been universally agreed otherwise there wouldnt have been 2 isralies fighting for their lives in hospital.

you think that those truntions are non leathal your sorely mistaken. I was ofcourse refering to modern weapons, like tear gas, paintball guns, tazers, concussion grenades.

so, your saying that you think policy would have been exactly the same with modern weapons available? The forces would be prosecuted in the modern day for sending such woefully unequipped soldiers into a potentially hostile situation, expecially when it is resulting in soldier deaths.

yes I am being presumptious, but so are you. Ive read about zionist fervor particularly Lehi, lots of these had formal training, not mindless aggression, they didnt randomly blow themselves up just to take a few with them. Jihad and muslim fanatacism is far more dangerous, unpredictable, often disorganised and merciless.

didnt say that. the exodus openly told the british they would resist them, allowing the boarding party to prepare fully for that resistance, the SS Exodus was also.... a little tincy bit smaller then the Mavi marmara. I would also point out that the Marines boarded the ships with considerably more man power then the Isralies boarded the Mavi Marmara, 30 Isralies boarded the Marmara. The Runnymede park for example was boarded by 200 marines. Which left 33 Jews, including four women, injured in the fighting

"One of the official observers who witnessed the violence was Dr. Noah Barou, secretary of the British section of the World Jewish Congress, who had 35 years experience of reporting.

He described young soldiers beating Holocaust survivors as a "terrible mental picture".

"They went into the operation as a football match ... and it seemed evident that they had not had it explained to them that they were dealing with people who had suffered a lot and who are resisting in accordance with their convictions." He noted: "People were usually hit in the stomach and this in my opinion explains that many people who did not show any signs of injury were staggering and moving very slowly along the staircase giving the impression that they were half-starved and beaten up." "When the people walked off the ship, many of them, especially younger people, were shouting to the troops 'Hitler commandos', 'gentleman fascists', 'sadists'." Dr Barou was "especially impressed" by one young girl who "came to the top of the stairs and shouted to the soldiers, 'I am from Dachau.' And when they did not react she shouted 'Hitler commandos'."

the British: "conceded that in one case a Jew "was dragged down the gangway by the feet with his head bumping on the wooden slats"."

Still think the British handled these that much better?

Do I? oh, what a shame....

The IHH openly fund and support Hamas, and the International Solidarity Movement advocates "armed struggle" against Israel. It is somewhat Naive to believe that none of the activists were prepared to take part in anti-isralie activities once they arrived, as the organisers were confident that the convoy would break the blockade due to its size "would stretch the Isralie navy and prisions to breaking point".

also, according to the timeline of events, the IDF naval forces made contact with the flotilla at 11pm, however the Mavi Marmara was boarded at 4:30, thats 6 and a half hours after the first warning, I'd say thats ample warning time.

 

Sarcasm? Really, you think that makes a point? Is that supposed to pass as an argument?

Your "garden hose" thing was bad enough, the fact that you can't even acknowledge that your criticism of Ragusa's example doesn't make any sense in comparison leads me to think that you're not only very opinionated, bigoted and prejudiced but closed to any sensible or rational discussion.

I've been very patient pointing out how absurd it was for you to write a post that defended the Nazis in regard to history... So you'll be pleased to know that I'm out of your way, feel free to stick to your "might makes right" routine or your "humans are animals" tired old line and all the Darwinist "survival of the fittest/cull the rest" bull that goes with it.

To quote Albert Einstein: "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Have fun defending what is morally indefensible. I'm done here.

 

Not really, actually. The SS Exodus was 98 metres long and had a beam of 17,22 metres. The Mavi Marmara is 93 metres long, with a beam of 20 metres, probably having a larger displacement. The ships are actually quite comparable in size.

More importantly however is that the Exodus carried 4.515 passengers, whereas there were in total 663 participants on board of the flotilla.

It's exactly the other way around than how you put it. Calling you presumptuous is commenting charitably on you freely making things up as you go along.

Which is supposed to tell us what what? That the Brits realistically adjusted their force size? That the Israelis made a mistake? That tactics made the difference?

 

what have I made up?

 

Not true, they would just be sure the soldiers had little blue hats.

 

Yes!

 

T2 has gone over them -- in detail -- many, many times in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read his posts, then I can't be bothered to respond to yours.

 

I've got some free time today, so I don't mind recapping T2 to help move the thread along.

After reviewing all his posts in this thread, this is what I've found that speaks directly to the topic of what should have been done or what is standard operating procedure. In summary:

1. Mild warning
2. More stern warning
3. Send a chill down the spine warning (whenever/if dialog starts, process of boarding starts)
4. Warning shot
5. Aim the gun at the bridge so the captain can see it (another naval ship should be in the area, helicopters should be circling, fighter jet may have flown by)
6. Fire at the stern of the ship below the waterline and/or conduct an armed assault

Apologies if I missed anything.

 

There are reports that Iran has already sent its own ships towards the blockade. I still think nothing will come of it. But both sides need to be very careful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37681507/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

 

Actually you only condensed one of my posts. There really is a lot involved in boarding and several factors can make the situation much less dangerous for all involved (such as ample time between warnings and the actual desire to start a dialog).

One thing I've noticed in communications was Israel seemed to believe that by warning the "Freedom Flotilla" they warned every ship in the flotilla -- that's not a very conservative approach if you want to minimize collateral damage. Each ship was basically an independant entity, there were eight ships (although two were delayed) sailing under six different flags. The process for boarding should have been followed for each ship individually. With how far out the process started there was plenty of time to coordinate with each ship's captain. Six minutes of communication (if that's even accurate) is nowhere near enough time.

Israel really blew it sending troops in harm's way for a boarding which did not require immediate action. Once again, when the flotilla was still hours from the "do not enter" line there is no need to send in the commandos right away. The task force (Naval units) peacefully boards the ships which are willing to comply and builds a presence around those ships which present a risk. The key is there was plenty of time before a combative response was necessary. The Israeli commander jumped the gun, put his commandos at risk and, in turn, escalated the confrontation to the point of casualties. Very poorly done.

Not really. The Israeli Navy is a brown water navy that really lacks experience in many facets of naval warfare. They are basically a coastal defense unit with a tiny fraction of the experience and expertise of the US Coast Guard. I would rank them on par with the Chinese and Iranian Navy -- with the same poor level of seamanship (very unlike the excellent seamanship of Australia, Oman, India, Korea and Japan to name a few).

 

Yes, but that seemed to be the only post where you spoke directly to the specifics of what should have been done. If I missed any others, again, apologies. But no matter - you've expounded on it further now.

 

Exactly, and that got some media press even with nine deaths on the other ship.

From Gaear's review, the only steps that were skipped were the shots, which would doubtless be both too provocative and too ineffective to be worth considering. I don't think anyone blames them for not firing 50mm cannons (or whatever their warships have) in the general direction of the ships.

I think that heavily depends on whether all ships were known to be listening to the same frequency (I think set by international law, isn't it?) and within the same region. There's no requirement that the ships vocally respond to the warnings, after all, just that they're given a chance to. So I guess they also skipped the potentially redundant 'rinse and repeat' step. Still, it does point to a certain level of complacency, like they didn't take it as a serious issue.

And I think the simple explanation for this, and not at all unreasonable, is that they just weren't expecting any real resistance. That really explains everything: that they weren't taking these people seriously.

 

Indeed!

Just kidding ... you don't know whether any of the points you use are factually correct. You just assume and assert that. Give to T2 that he probably knows something about boarding, and accept what he says as factually correct. Except for not linking the end result, you have no reason not to.

It is thus, while to some extent entertaining and unsurprising (for me anyway), silly to draw up hypothetical alternative scenarios under which the points he made don't matter. They do.

It's nonsense to speculate that it depends on whether all ships were known to be listening to the same frequency - they are listening, by trade craft - there are dedicated channels for such traffics that every captain is listening to.

And indeed, just to provide some bonus trivia, such standardisation is the work of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the responsible international body.

 

Yeah, I figured it was standardized. So, then, why do you need to issue a specific warning for each vessel?

Any contention that any of us make will be based on assumptions that have no more basis than that we like the outcome they lead us to, whether it be that Israel went in with lethal intent or that some of the activists were iching for a beating, or whatever.

And anyway, Ragusa, these are the angles, since when did we settle for someone else's professional or experiencial reasoning?

 

Aah that's it - who is really completely objective all the time? And since that is so, aren't we all biased and aren't our views thus equivalent?

Short answer: No.

Full answer: There is a difference between, interpreting and analysing facts - even with a slant - and being 'free floating' i.e. thinking up hypothetical alternate realities presented as fact (as in: Non-lethal weapons didn't exist then! When they clearly did. Or: The Exodus was a wee bit smaller than the Mavi Marmara! When a simple Google search would have strongly suggested otherwise). Or think of claims that there is no serious humanitarian problem in Gaza, when for instance the WHO report (and Red cross reports and ...) soberly stresses that that clearly is the case.

There is something like unreasonable doubt, and there is something like stubborn persistence on a view in spite of a contradicting objective (verifiable) reality

And as for the Experts: They are human and thus fallible and subject to follies just like the rest of us, but what they have as an advantage over non-experts is knowledge and experience. They know more. That's why experts get higher salaries in the business world than amateurs.

 

non lethal weapons did not exist back then, truntions are not non lethal weapons.

no it hasnt, it has shown that the Mavi Marmara was bigger.
mavi marmara: 2236.52 square yards.
Exodus: 2011.60 square yards.
without a more intricate knowledge of the layout of the 2 ships we cant know anything more.

this entire thread is based on made up opinion, the blockade has been declared legal, but your interpretation of the law says it isnt... well Im sorry but you dont have the power to make that decision.

from the same diagnosis there are serious humanitarian problems in the UK.

that is your opinion, your perspective, your perspective was also that S13 shouldnt have been there, despite it being their job, your perspective is that the isralies brutally boarded the ship and murdered 9 people, but that has been proven with video to be false.

its always the same argument with you, you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and because they are wrong in your eyes their grasp or understanding of the situation is lacking. you are not right while everyone else is wrong.Maybe its you who needs to be put under the spot light, you have a very strong hatred for Israel.... maybe thats only natural.

so lets go back over fact shall we, as quite nicely posted by snook earlier in this thread:

 

Unless there were some very odd layouts of the two vessels though, it's fair to say that Mavi Marmara was a little bigger than the Exodus - about 10% bigger.

 

Groan ...

Utter nonsense.

I'd like to point out that calculating the actual area of the ships (square yards) is a startling thing to do when, since ships are three dimensional bodies, the relevant and common indicator for the size of a naval vessel is its displacement.