Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

I think it has been claimed before and I find this part of the discussion rather pointless but couldn't shooting teargas and lowering yourself down from a helicopter be interpreted as starting it?

 

NOG, a utility knife and a pocket knife are basically the same thing -- and the knives you linked to weren't the knives pictured in your link. To borrow the account from Wikipedia (hardly an exhaustive source, I know)

No guns are on the list. "Combat knives" weren't listed, so it's not like I'm smoking crack on this one.

I never argued that the Israelis had no right to defend themselves after the situation spiraled out of control. Would you kindly show me where I said that?

...which is why I discounted the conclusion out of hand.

For the love of God, NOG, I never said that! Would you please, please, pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top stop putting words in my mouth? I choose my language very carefully. When I post, there are no hidden meanings, I don't use code words, I don't make my points using innuendo. If I'm going to say something, I'm going to say it directly. My statement about the weapons was related directly to intent prior to the boarding. I've clarified that point more times than I care to count, and I daresay that even a casual reading of my other posts would lay my position plain. Nneither side had lethal intent prior to boarding; neither side was looking for a fight. The most plausible explanation is that this was a situation that was never supposed to happen -- things just spiraled out of control and it ended in tragedy

To protect themselves, clearly opening fire wasn't excessive -- but I strongly doubt they needed to kill 9 people and wound dozens more in order to contain the situation. That was overzealous, but hardly unexpected -- understandable, given the circumstances.

I take issue with your use of the term "murder". The Israelis in choosing to forcefully board a ship that at that time was in international waters and providing no resistance used excessive force. When they finally opened fire with live ammo, they did so in self defense. The shameful part was the IDF's decision to forcefully board the ship, treating the occupants as hostiles before they had just cause. What happened after was tragic, sad, predictable -- but not murder.

Yes. Yes it should.

 

Soldiers are victims?

A thought that just crossed my mind over my morning coffee was how preposterous the idea is to consider soldiers, of an elite unit, assaulting their objective as ... victims of the opposition.

Which implies incomprehension and outrage, just outrage, that the others are shooting back. Indeed, how dare they? Villains! The opposition is supposed to bend over and ask for more benevolent imposition of enemy will! Not to surrender immediately, more: any resistance to hostilities, is just an expression of ... enemy ill will? If there is anything characterising an enemy it is probably ill will. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Soldiers overcome enemy resistance by force of arms. Soldiers use violence, a broad spectrum of violence. That's what they do and that's what they train to do. Probably precisely because it is violent, overcoming enemy resistance is unpopular with the opposition, to say the least (which appears to be up to date the best available explanation for why soldiers, for millennia now, die all the time). It involves being shot at. Usually it involves being shot at with artillery, air strikes, mortars, RPG, IED, sniper fire, machine guns and the like. Nasty stuff. So, soldiers go and impose their and their nation's will by force of arms against opposition and the commentators are surprised and outraged ... there is opposition? Violent opposition? Call them ... victims? How deluded is that?

I don't know, I certainly don't see soldiers that way, didn't see myself that way when I was a soldier. A victim? A victim with an assault rifle? What an odd attitude. How shall a soldier take pride in his profession when he is actually, in everything he does, once he faces the enemy, a victim? I gather that is a concept that doesn't exactly promote ... a warrior spirit. If that is the self-image of Israel's soldiers ...

If that wasn't ridiculous enough, there is a pernicious flip side to this self-righteous indignation: If a soldier kids himself about what he does and sees himself as a victim, then the enemy is an aggressor - a villain. It is incompatible with accepting the enemy as an honourable opponent who has rights (and perhaps deserves treatment as a POW). A self-image of a soldier as a victim of the enemy (instead of seeing both more soberly as participants) in war must lead to excess against the enemy. I think we see a lot of that in the Israeli conduct vis a vis the Palestinians.

 

OK, fair enough I retract the term, Drew. It was a fight so I won't claim murder. I will point though that it's very hard, even in a court of law, to claim self-defense if you attack first. However, go fire some tear gas into someone's house and see how they react. Better yet, fire some into a police station and then see what happens.

 

I cant reply to everything which has been said here, so Ill make a post from the last few posts.

I both agree and disagree with parts of this T2, you are correct that this was a botched boarding, in the fact that the landing forces were ill prepared for the resistance which they recieved, leading me to believe that they werent expecting to be attacked on landing. These were similar tactics used to hit a hostile ship, in the form of a stellar landing, however I wouldnt call their landing excessive, I would call it woefully inadequate, expecially as they didnt take measures to clear the deck for their landing. Like you said earlier, this was a check on a suspicious vessel, not an assult.

lets get onto weapons, anything is a potential weapon, its not the item, its the intent which clarifies this point - a bamboo skewer is not a weapon, until I stab someone with it - we have a whole list of items which are not allowed in the club - because they could potentially be used as a weapon.

I would also like to point out that utility knives do not have serrated blades


weapon
–noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

these paintball guns are a specially modified version used by hostage rescue teams, they fire pellets loaded with teargas, the pellet breaks on contact and releases a small amount of teargas in close contact to the target.

so, the video footage doesnt prove that the soldiers were attacked? I actually count one soldier being hit 10 times with metal poles while he is on the floor.

really? then why do you have to be 18 to buy them? a kitchen knife (chef's knife in particular) is designed to cut flesh, its dual role is very easy to see. as I said earlier, what defines a weapon it the intent to use it, the instant these guys picked up the blades with an intent to use them on the soldiers, they were armed hostiles.

once again, I point you to the fact that there were no deaths on the other ships... what is teargas used for?
to disperse a crowd - could it have possibly been that the Isralies saw a baying crowd on the deck of the ship and tried to disperse them without lethal force? it would have been far easier to shoot them.

the shots which killed the activists were from the soldier's sidearms, usually used as a last resort, you know, from a soldier who is having the s**t beaten out of him... so, should he have let himself be killed to preserve the lives of the 'innocents'?
If you were in the same situation, you have a gun and there is a baying mob that wants your blood, do you think, "no, I cant shoot them, it was our actions which made them blood thirsty"
Of course not, you preserve your own life, pull out your gun and open fire. - self defense.

That is correct. However, would the shot which is obviously a warning be as effective against a crew who know your not stupid enough to sink a ship full of activists?

from that point of view, the police start alot of things.

agreed

the isralies had already boarded other ships at this time, with no injuries or casualties, why would there be any reason for the crew of the mavi mammara think that the isralies are going to harm them? The radio message from the IDF asks them to alter their course to Ashdod, where they would be allowed to surpervise their aid being brought into Gaza through legitimate land crossings, where are the threats?

I actually think Israel were very nice about it.

strange that plenty of aid is brought into Gaza.... through legitimate land crossings.

what the hell are you smoking? Soldiers are not cold blooded killers. And they are not trained to use force, force is used as a last resort, your 'average' soldier is drilled in weapons and survival as a means of defence they are not universally trained to 'storm the barricades' you have to opt or apply for that kind of training. as I said earlier, the royal welch are not trained to board ships, they are not trained to carry out hostage rescue or assult cave complexes - they are trained to defend positions and carry out high visibility patrols. The royal marines on the other hand are, thus their slogan "99.9% of the population aren't good enough"
I'd love to know what branch of the millitary you were in, when I trained with the army, I spent 13 weeks basic training, learning to defend myself and be fit enough to survive. I had to go on to bedford for a further year of training before I was allowed to do anything other then walk around with a rifle, and shoot back if someone tried to kill us.

If you have been a soldier how can you say that? you dont think a 19 yearold who has had his legs blown off is a victim? you dont think all the bodies which have been brought through Wootton Bassett were victims? nothing has ever shook me so much as when I searched a dead soldier to find a picture of his family, that was the day I decided that it wasnt for me anymore, but you dont think he's a victim. soldiers are still human, they are not machines to be used as impliments of death.

were you really in the forces?

 

So what's up with the knife in my glove-box, then? I bought it for camping and hiking, and the bottom half of the blade is serrated. The serrated part as I understand it is for cutting rope, not killing people.

I'll let Rags handle the rest -- he can take care of himself.

 

Ok, I'll stand down on that one, I was just looking at several knives that I have and none have serrations, 2 of them have a seperate tool for cutting rope.

but you have to agree, that makes the knife a whole lot deadlier if you stabbed someone with it.

I will say this about the photo's nog posted though, this one in particular:

{edit} little green footballs wont let me link to the pic - the uncropped picture on this page

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...o_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

looks more like the knife is about to be used to cut the black strap which is being held tight, then having been used to stab someone

 

Sure, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really make a difference.

 

The guns were apparently taken from the soldiers (and we know that because the soldiers have bullet wounds). I guess they must be calling the bladed insturments in the photos 'daggers'. Still a weapon by most anyone's definition, though.

I'm sorry, that part was more targeted at the 'excessive force' arguement.

Drew, I wasn't even quoting you there.

I think this is where I fail to understand you. Why do you think it was overzealous. You've agreed they were justified in opening fire, and I don't think either of us know either what the exact situation was, nor what the reaction of the activists was to the gunfire (they may not all have cowered in fear after all). I think it's a clear bias to assume that it was overzealous or excessive without one shred of evidence to the point. And, no, the difference in dead and wounded isn't evidence to that point.

Ragusa, there's a massive disconnect here. If the opposition fired back, they were not peaceful protestors, they were combatants, much like enemy soldiers. If that's the case, the soldiers aren't 'victims' as you put it, but neither are they 'murderers' as Chandos put it. They're soldiers doing their job, engaging the enemy. If the opposition wish to be considered as peaceful protestors, and not hostile combatants, they shouldn't fire back.

 

New video from the protesters, it seems Israel killed people before they even boarded. It's good quality, HD I think, and seems to have somehow evaded the Israelite confiscation. Warning: Shows blood and, I think, someone dying at 9:30.

link

 

A very good question. This is a blockade -- if you're not willing to sink the vessel, the blockade will not be effective.

Typically an engagement in restricted waters is a drawn out event (drawn out can be a few minutes, or a few hours -- depending of the level of threat and location). The first thing that happens is a mild warning, something like (I'll use US warnings, which have pretty much been adopted by everyone):

"Vessel at [state the location] this is US Naval Warship [state location relative to the vessel], you are steering towards restricted waters protect by the United States Navy, turn to course [whatever will keep them clear] or identify yourself and intent."​

This warning is broadcast over several frequencies, especially those required to be monitored by all maritime traffic. It may even be broadcast over topside speakers of the Naval vessel. This is actually part of a script and the naval vessel probably knows who the other guy is. Intel has already identified vessels of interest complete with cargo manifest, passengers and even who the Captain is. The intel will also give what contraband, if any, is suspected. If this first warning is ignored, a second warning is issue with more stern language:

"Vessel at [state the location] this is US Naval Warship [state location relative to the vessel], you are approaching restricted waters protect by the United States Navy and subject to boarding and inspection. Turn immediately to course [whatever will keep them clear] or identify yourself and intent."​

If the vessel continues to ignore the war ship a third warning will eventually be issued:

"Vessel at [state the location] this is US Naval Warship [state location relative to the vessel], you are entering restricted waters protect by the United States Navy. [Give them a course and speed in manditory language, perhaps even order them to stop their engines] and prepare to be boarded or you will be fired upon."​

All three of these warning are primarily meant to start a dialog -- the third one will send a chill down the spine. Once that dialog starts the process for boarding starts, this can be fairly drawn out as well. To me, starting the entire process 50-60 miles out from the "line of action" gives plenty of time for everyone to calm down and 'ease' into the inevitable -- tensions are quite high and it's best to give a little extra time. It also gives time for other units to close on the location.

As an aside: In general I, as the naval officer, could care less about evidence. If the guys are doing a delay tactic and tossing contraband overboard ... great. My goal is to prevent contraband from entering the restricted area. It's a bit different in drug ops because the law enforcement guys want the evidence.​

A warning shot would be fired if the vessel has continued to ignore the verbal warnings. A common tactic after the warning shot has fired is to manually aim the (cleared) gun at the bridge. The captain is then looking at a 5" or 76mm circle, not even seeing the length of the barrel. There should be another naval ship in the area, the vessel has had helicopters circling and may have even had a fighter jet fly by at this point. This is the Navy's version of surrounding a car with a SWAT team and saying "put your hand on the steering wheel and don't move." It is generally quite effective.

The final step in this would be to fire at the stern of the ship below the waterline, conduct an armed assault (generally Marines or a SEAL team), or both.

From all accounts thus far the Israelis went straight to the final, violent step. That is why I have said it was excessive. They did not try peaceful measures first. Really the only time to jump to assault first is if the passengers are in danger (terrorists using them as a shield).

 

I fully concede that the boat was not entirely filled with peace activists - there were a couple hundred people on board, and there probably isn't a blanket term that we can use to describe all of them, short of "passengers". However, I cannot see how it can be interpreted that the people on the boat started this.

From what I understand, Israeli commandos fired tear gas at the ship, and repelled down to the ship with paintball guns. I think that since the tear gas was fired first, the Israelis were the aggressors here. Secondly, in the middle of the night, it would be pretty hard to tell that the paintball guns (modified to contain tear gas within the paintball), were not actual assault rifles.

I think the most reasonable interpretation was that the people on the boat thought they were under attack and acted in what they thought was self defense against deadly force with whatever weapons they had. So they grabbed their poles, and started treating the repelling Israeli soldiers like pinatas as they dropped to the ship.

Now, if I were an Israeli soldier, and I had been whacked several times with a metal pole, I would be pretty pissed off, and would assume that I would continue to get the tar knocked out of me if I didn't respond. So I can easily see why they aggressively defended themselves at that point.

I definitely don't think that they boarded with lethal intent. I would like to point out though, that if they had boarded with only paintball guns (acknowledging that you haven't stated otherwise), there wouldn't have been nine deaths. I have been shot with a paintball gun from close range, and while it certainly hurts like a son of a bicth, it certainly didn't kill me (although it did leave one hell of a bruise).

 

A question T2. That is standard operation procedure for the NAvy of all countries? Israel has a very war-like posture these days. Do you expect them to act in accordance to your above post? That is a question, not a statement, just to clarify.

 

Awesome

Blades: I have made the distinction "these were the Isrealis" in several of my posts, but yes I would expect them to follow the basics of the 'script.' The 'script' is actually an operational order which could be 20 or more pages in length with a lot of 'if this, then that' actions. There are several main goals with such an operational order: keep contraband out of the restricted area, minimize risks to sailors and marines boarding other vessels, and minimize (hopefully eliminate) collateral damage. The Israelis clearly did not do the second and third parts right (and they should have).

Once the commandos were onboard and under assault they did exactly what I would expect them to do. Often the Israelis have shown a lack of professionalism by overreacting (but to be fair they have good reasons for such harsh reactions).

 

Um, no. Police use teargas as a crowd-control measure when the crowd gets out of control. They don't use teargas when nothing is going on.

 

The report would certainly be different, unless military rifles are typically equipped with silencers or something. If they were unable to make that judgement due to there being no reports, would they really be able to conclude that they were being 'attacked' then, as opposed to simply boarded?

 

I admit, I watched the video with a sense of dread. When it was over, I only had a sense of confusion. I was expecting to see people being shot from a boat or a helicopter. Something to show that Israel was killing innocent protesters. Instead (unless I missed it) all I saw was people who were shot/injured being carried downstairs and treated with a lot of others standing around and nothing happening to them. If this is the great evidence of Israeli atrocity, I'm not impressed. I'm guessing these were the people with the metal poles who were attacking soldiers.

Also, my favorite part was the guy shooting a slingshot at a helicopter. What a mensa candidate

 

What I meant was that the people on the ship being boarded would certainly be able to tell that the soldiers were carrying something that looked like a gun. At night, and especially in the panic/confusion, it is understandable if they didn't get a good look. Since soldiers are not typically armed with paintball guns, but rather with real guns, they probably assumed they were real.

 

What made this ship different from the other ones that were boarded? I believe that it is conceded by pretty well everyone that other boats in the flotilla were peacefully boarded. So this particular vessel, what happened? Did the Israeli's have some reason (valid or not) to expect a different response from this boat? Did some Israeli soldier garble orders and go in too hot? I suppose that's a possibility. Another possibility is that the people on the target boat decided they wanted to make a statement and stir up a little press, and then react with the old "boo hoo" line when the soldiers objected to being "treat[ed] . . . like pinatas" by the protestors.

My opinion is that it's the same military boarding a variety of vessels. The reason for the different result likely arises from the actions of the people on the boarded boat, not the boarders. I feel very little sympathy for them, as I don't buy their "humanitarian" line of BS -- they want to destroy Israel, and will use any tactic to achieve that, including misdirection and dishonesty. The Muslim world in particular could do a great deal to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians, but then they would have such a great topic to <snip> at Israel about. They'd rather use those poor people as their catspaws in their efforts to destroy and discredit Israel.

 

To claim that peace protesters want to destroy Israel is a bit paranoid. It betrays a siege mentality that could be understandable for an Israeli citizen but it is nevertheless a rather extreme viewpoint.

There are Israelis who don't condone what their government is doing and it doesn't seem like they want the destruction of Israel.

Arab countries have recognized the existence of the state of Israel, you may not put much stock in that fact but it's a fact nevertheless.

LKD, you're taking the religious road here and it is beside the point. If you said the "Arab world" and not the "Muslim world" then it woud be more appropriate (as long as we're on the subject let me point out that Iran is not an Arab country so you may want to be more specific). There is a large minority of Palestinians who are Christians after all so reducing the issue to a simple Jews vs Muslims religious confrontation is misguided and another example of the sort of quick generalizations people come up with when they stop at superficial considerations.