Gaza aid flotilla to set sail

[Disturbedguy]

Holy crap, you guys really are hung up on this 'edited' business, all video is always edited before it's pushed anywhere. You're talking as if the frames of the video was manipulated to show something that didn't happen.

Also, FYI, I never claimed the video was unedited. The fact that it has been edited is irrelevant. The editor of the video clearly wanted to focus on certain things people were ignoring.

That doesn't alter the contents of the video in any way.

Namely, passengers swarming and assaulting IDF troops with weapons.

But you ignore that anyway.

I'm done with this thread, I've no more love for ostrages who bury their heads in the face of hard evidence than I do for idiots who try to run a blockade.

The point I am attempting to make in regards to the video being edited, is that in no way can it be claimed that it is 100% factual and truthful. You asid yourself the editor clearly wanted to focus on certain things, so there is a possibility that the video has been edited to omit other items.

Just because we dont agree with your views, or agree with the fact that everyone apparently hates Jews, means nothing more than that we dont agree with you. Get over yourself, there are two sides to discussions and argumenets, not everyone is going to agree with you or your views, this does not mean that they have been brain washed by the media or anything else, people have there own minds and therefore DON'T have to agree with you.

Also, if you were on a ship, in INTERNATIONAL waters and some troops started landing on the deck of the ship, would you not try and defend yourself? In my opinion, until that ship left international waters they should NOT have been boarded, plain and simple.

[Kata]

That sounds like pretty spurious argument. What you are saying is that ancient history is more relevant than the continuous, ongoing story of what people living in Palestine are actually still living through?

Upon what basis, assuming that you are not on hallucinogenics, do you make that assertion? Dead people are more important than living ones? stuff mattered more in the Middle Ages?

In my opinion, the beginning of the influx of Jews into Palestine following the war is pretty much the start point of this particular conflict. Jews, Arabs and Christians all got on pretty well since the crusades, until the Jews turned up wanting to recreate an exclusively Jewish Israel on land where Arabs were living. What the Jews did to make the Romans kick them out centuries ago bears no relevance at all to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The problem is that no, they did not get on well at all before this; try reading up a little on the subject. Looking back 60 years, you can draw one conclusion; looking back a different number of years, you can draw another. It's only by looking at the whole story, whihc is a very long story, that you get a decent overview of the situation.

I make this assertion from the premise that it's best to know the whole story before judging. Evidently you prefer to ignore any history that doesn't support your arguement; good luck with that.

I have to say that I have no sympathy for the "aid" convoy. They set out to deliberately provoke this kind of reaction by illegally running a blockade; and they are surprised to be intercepted? I have no doubt that this is exactly the reaction they wanted, tbh.

[TheAnimus]

No, you don't seem to understand what a blockade is. This will help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance, unless I can understand someone thinking in an altruistic manner.

[shadowmaster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...utopsy-results

Interesting

[format]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...utopsy-results

Interesting

This clears everything up. The IDF were just defending themselves against the back of people heads!

[TooNice]

Well, if most victims were shot a close range, then it diminishes the odds that Israeli fired from the chopper.

Come to think of it, what has Israel got to gain from allowing a formal international investigation (thinking from their perspective)? Most people (condemning them) are condemning the fact that they boarded the ship in the first place. It's probably hard to prove whether the troops acted in self-defence beyond available footage (which can be tempered with while we are waiting), but even if they could convincingly prove that the troops did show restraint until cornered by swing happy knife/club wielders, would it sway anyone's mind? If not, then what are we trying to establish with the proposed investigation (the autopsy already shows how much force they employed too)?

You're allowed to use proportional force in most cases - responding with lethal force against non-lethal actions is not usually proportional.

OT: Yeah, but that's quite hard to estimate isn't it. What would be a fair equaliser if one was up against someone who is 5" and 20kg over him? Misjudge (both the equipment and the required force), and the one defending the house could end up a victim of burglary and homicide. Yet the 'safer' the mean for the defendant (e.g. sneak behind and swing something sharp where it's likely to kill) is also likely to be the most disproportional. And even if two people are the same size, there is no guarantee that the person who is defending will be the better fighter. And you end up in a position where you are completely restrained the attacker can gradually beat you to death.

[JPreston]

Come to think of it, what has Israel got to gain from allowing a formal international investigation (thinking from their perspective)?

What does any criminal have to gain from allowing his crime to be investigated? The difference is; we do not usually allow a criminal to dictate whether or not his latest crime be investigated, much less appoint him as chair of the investigation into his own crimes.

[JPreston]

This clears everything up. The IDF were just defending themselves against the back of people heads!

I think it's worth spending a moment examining the autopsy details of the nine (that we know about) dead. Bear in mind that these details are likely to be the equivalent of the video footage that apologists for Israel are so assured justifies the action, in that it is the very minimum amount of information that has been released by Israel for the propaganda purpose of showing Israel in the best conceivable light, while Israel continues to suppress all other information and imprison the many journalists and eye-witnesses present on the scene. Unless you think that the person taking the video only pressed 'record' at the beginning of that one-minute film and then promptly ran out of battery, I suppose, which would be entirely in-keeping with the quality of apologist arguments being presented.

Cengiz Alquyz, 42

Four gunshot wounds: back of head, right side of face, back, left leg

Ibrahim Bilgen, 60

Four gunshot wounds: right chest, back, right hip, right temple

Cegdet Kiliclar, 38

One gunshot wound: middle of forehead

Furkan Dogan, 19

Five gunshot wounds: nose, back, back of head, left leg, left ankle

Sahri Yaldiz

Four gunshot wounds: left chest, left leg, right leg twice

Aliheyder Bengi, 39

Six gunshot wounds: left chest, belly, right arm, right leg, left hand twice

Cetin Topcuoglu, 54

Three gunshot wounds: back of head, left side, right belly

Cengiz Songur, 47

One gunshot wound: front of neck

Necdet Yildirim, 32

Two gunshot wounds: right shoulder, left back

Have a look at Furkan Dogan, a dead teenage US citizen who was shot five times including two in his legs and one in the back of his head. Think about whether the shot to the back of his head would logically have preceded or followed the two shots to his legs; I do not think Israeli stormtroopers are trained to shoot corpses multiple times in the legs even if they are still warm and twitching, so it is more likely that he was shot in the back of his head after being shot twice in his legs by which time he would presumably have been lying on the deck, or at best kneeling and pleading for his life. This is not self-defence. It is summary execution, and it is still being defended on this forum.

Every victim was shot multiple times with only two exceptions, one of whom was killed by one shot in the centre of his forehead by what the autopsy found to be a 'distant shot' and (assuming it's the same victim that I read an earlier account of) described by an eye-witness as being from a laser-sighted assault rifle, the unarmed victim never knew what killed him. This is not self-defence, even if the victim was the one carrying the angle-grinder - pretty much the ideal weapon with which to attack a crack unit of well-trained and armed soldiers, if one is to believe the Israeli apologists - and he had a really long extension cord to power it.

All but four of the victims had been shot in their backs, or the backs of their heads. And still people here are defending their murders as being in self-defence. Perhaps the Israeli commandos, soldiers carrying the only firearms onboard the ship, really were in serious danger from a new martial art that has been hitherto unknown; "the art of fighting by being shot in the back while running away from special forces"?

[Saracen]

Yes, because we 'only' here about the horrors of the people who are denied simple supplies to rebuild a school.

Never the people who suffered 30,000 rocket attacks in a year. No, we never read or hear about that on say the BBC, Fox News, CNN......

Some news sources like the Guardian are horrifically biased and strongly partisan. But I think most people here read a variety of sources and are capable of making an informed judgement.
....

But how "informed" is it actually?

If you read a dozen biased views, how close are you to the facts? Even if you read Israeli official propaganda and rabidly anti-Israeli propaganda, and a variety of shades in-between, how can we really reach much of a judgement beyond " we don't know what happened".

A lot of people in this thread have quoted eye-witness accounts (including me), but how many of those eye witness accounts are independent and impartial? Almost by definition, if you were on that convoy, you're very likely to be at best sympathetic to the purpose of the convoy, and quite possibly, fairly radical. So, how much more credence do with give to the accounts of "protester" compared to IDF observers or soldiers? I mean, I could pretty much write the scripts for either side, and I wasn't there.

I was watching an old re-run of Babylon % the other day and Commander Sheridan quoted an old an especially apt adage .... "the first casualty of any war is the truth".

I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinian people. I have for several decades. I also remember getting myself in political hot water several decades ago for saying I sympathised with the objectives of the IRA. But I don't sympathise with the methods of the IRA any more than I sympathised with the PLO for hijacking airliners or Al Queda for flying planes into city centres.

Similarly, I sympathise with the objectives of the blockade (preventing rockets getting to Gaza) and with a right to enforce a blockade for that purpose, even if I deplore the loss of life that resulted.

What I don't place much credence in is either IDF or "peace protester" accounts of what happened on this ship. I can't see that we yet have enough audited evidence to form an informed judgement on it.

But logic tends to suggest I believe more of the IDF account than the peace protesters. Why? Well, as with any murder investigation, I ask myself .... who gains? What does Israel have to gain from the spilled blood? They've soured already sour relations with Turkey, they've created a media fire storm and the vast bulk of it has been either hostile or at best, lukewarm and distant, and they've created a major diplomatic furore. I can't see why Israel would seek to do that. I can see why they enforce the blockade, but not why they seek bloodshed.

On the other hand, I can see what Hamas sympathisers have to gain, because they've gained it ... exactly that same furore. As I say, in most murders, a prime factor will be who has motive?

But my feeling, based on a sniff test, that the Israeli account, including that they fired in self-defence is more credible than the protester account of unprovoked shootings is no more than "credible", and it sure doesn't mean I swallow their whole story. This is especially true given Turkish news footage of protesters waiting on stairs and behind doors, quite clearly tooled up with bars of some sort, wearing life vests which would protect against tasers and rubber bullets, and gas masks that would protect against tear gas.

It seems to me that at the very least, they were clearly not going to just surrender, or even to just use passive resistance and that at the very least, an element of the protester were spoiling for a fight. Then, when we see footage of troops coming down their ropes one or two at a time, and being set upon by far larger numbers of protesters, again apparently wielding iron bars etc, it adds credence to that perspective.

So ... if Israeli troops arrived in those ones and twos, and found protesters wearing protective measures that would protect against tear gas, rubber bullets and tasers, and in larger numbers and wielding iron bars, it's not hard to see how they would resort to firearms. If that had been a couple of British armed police officers set upon by a large mob of rioters in similar fashion on the streets of the UK, they would have been quite justified in using deadly force too. They might have preferred tasers or rubber bullets, but in the circumstances, that may well not have been an option.

I don't know what happened, any more than almost anyone else does. Even those that were there, be they IDF troops or protesters, only know part of it, because they will only have seen the bit right where they were, and even then, it was dark and confusing.

Moreover, inquiry or not, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. For a start, how can we know what the protesters pans were, what the intentions were, unless they tell us and if they do, they're not likely to say "yeah, we set an ambush and we wanted to create a bloody disaster" even if that is exactly what they set out to do. In my view, we stand about as much chance of getting a full and accurate account of this as we do of finding out whether there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, or exactly where the aliens that crash landed at Roswell actually came from .... assuming it wasn't just an experimental US balloon, and a load of hype for the benefit of the media.

One more point. It's blindingly obvious that Hamas can't win against Israel militarily. The PR war, the battle for hearts and minds, however, is rather different. For all their much-vaunted military capability, Israel is doing a spectacular job of PR ineptitude, and Hamas certainly seems to be winning that war. That's one more reason for the "motive" sniff test - if it walks like a duck, quacks and is covered in feathers .....

[Saracen]

....

Have a look at Furkan Dogan, a dead teenage US citizen who was shot five times including two in his legs and one in the back of his head. Think about whether the shot to the back of his head would logically have preceded or followed the two shots to his legs; I do not think Israeli stormtroopers are trained to shoot corpses multiple times in the legs even if they are still warm and twitching, so it is more likely that he was shot in the back of his head after being shot twice in his legs by which time he would presumably have been lying on the deck, or at best kneeling and pleading for his life. This is not self-defence. It is summary execution, and it is still being defended on this forum.

Talk about leap to conclusions. You don't even know if all the shots came from the came source yet, and you certainly don't know if he was pleading for his life. I could just as well say that in the melee, he had been shot by disabling shots and was reaching for a gun that was laying on the deck. Speculation is speculation.

....

Every victim was shot multiple times with only two exceptions, one of whom was killed by one shot in the centre of his forehead by what the autopsy found to be a 'distant shot' and (assuming it's the same victim that I read an earlier account of) described by an eye-witness as being from a laser-sighted assault rifle, the unarmed victim never knew what killed him. This is not self-defence, even if the victim was the one carrying the angle-grinder - pretty much the ideal weapon with which to attack a crack unit of well-trained and armed soldiers, if one is to believe the Israeli apologists - and he had a really long extension cord to power it.

Oh please, never heard of a cordless power tool? It doesn't make them any less dangerous.

And as for self-defence, even under British law, which clearly isn't what is determinant here, "self" defence includes defence of others. If a British armed policemen is confronting someone with a gun, that someone doesn't have to point the gun at the policeman for it to be a valid shooting - pointing it at another officer or a bystander will do it too. And again, under UK law, you can also use deadly force to defend property. That's not to say it is always sufficient to be defending property, as clearly it has to be "reasonable", but you can use it to defend property. That, by the way, is not my non-lawyer armchair opinion, but that of an Appeal Court judge.

Even assuming it's a "distance" shot, and assuming it was a laser-targeting sniper it still might be self-defence, because that will depend on what the bloke that was shot was up to. It is also the case, under British law, that it is not even necessary for there to be an actual threat, just that the person using deadly force had reasonable grounds to believe it. For instance, if you point a replica firearm at an armed police officer, or a bystander, they are entitled to fire because they have reasonable grounds to believe the threat is real, even if it turns out the "firearm" could not possibly have actually fired. They couldn't know that.

[aidanjt]

The Rachel Corrie is boarded, nobody tried to murder troopers, nobody died, surprise!!

[jim]

To be fair, I doubt that the Israelis would've been daft enough to kill anybody given the circumstances, whatever the protesters had tried to do.

[aidanjt]

They didn't need to, because the peace protesters were actually peaceful.

And I assure you, the RoEs would still be "only fire to defend yourself". No military is going to drop troops into a hostile scenario with orders to not defend themselves, bar super secret special ops matters.

[JPreston]

Saracen, now you are actually complaining that civilian passengers on an aid ship under (illegal) assault by commandos chose to wear life-jackets at the time. You claim that in doing so they become impervious to non-lethal suppression like tasers and rubber bullets and so perhaps, like a zombie, can only be stopped by being shot in the head from 45cm away.

If you were present on the ship and able to get your hands on a life-jacket, you wouldn't have worn it? If you really have read the eyewitness accounts that you claim to, you will have read the claims that Israeli soldiers were throwing passengers overboard and it is not clear whether they were later rescued. Yet you actually claim that wearing a life-jacket while on a ship is an aggressive act towards whoever might be inclined to assault your ship?

Yes, gas-masks can protect against tear gas. I'm not at all sure that it is incumbent on passengers on ships to maximise their vulnerability to illegal attacks (and since you do not recognise the expertise of Craig Murray who after all only helped write the UN Convention of the Laws of the Sea, instead appealing to the authority of undisclosed people who you may or not be related to I really don't see how we might settle the dispute either way) but even if it were, you would be wise to don whatever improvised facial protection you could get your hands on because gas masks are reasonably effective at protecting against tear gas canisters as well - those can have your eye out, you know.

The rest of your post complains about bias, ironically contrasting Israeli "official" propaganda with "rabid" opposing propaganda in what we are to presumably accept are perfectly balanced terms, introduces a totally irrelevant comparison between UK riot police and rioters (failing to appreciate that the IDF had absolutely no jurisdiction on the ship and had to fly over a hundred miles out to sea to even reach it, and that if UK police were to kill 9 demonstrators there would in fact a full independent inquiry and rather a big stink over it as well), before concluding that just because this act of piracy/murder/war has been a PR disaster for Israel it can only have been a premeditated master plan by Hamas, which presumably we should now accept is an umbrella term for everyone on Earth except the IDF (there being even a member of the Israeli knesset onboard the flotilla). I'm not sure if any those points as they are currently formulated warrant a reply, TBH.

I will say though that delivering aid directly to Gaza does as much to weaken Hamas as much as it exposes the revolting and certainly illegal blockade by Israel. Hamas control 100% of the crumbs that the Israelis allow into Gaza, making the population entirely dependent on Hamas until such time as the blockade is lifted. I would also think it self-evident that if you publicly state a policy of (illegal, illegal, illegal) collective punishment on a civilian population and then actually carry it out, then that population will become less favourably disposed to you over time, not more. But I suppose that specific idiocy from Israel is also the fault of Hamas as well?

[chuckskull]

Once again with the disclaimer that I don't really like either side, running the blockade was a stupid idea and was met by a stupid response IMHO.

A fire-fight in such close quarters is a very messy thing. Just because someone was shot in the back doesn't make it an execution. That assumption shows the same kind of bias you are so vehemently deriding.

Special forces teams are just that; teams. They are designed, equipped and trained to operate as a single entity. Just because the shot wasn't fired by the person who was actually in immediate danger doesn't mean it wasn't in self defence. The shot's could have been fired from a flanking/rear angle to avoid dangers such as over-penetration, for example if one violent person is rushing you with another group of innocents behind. If the person in danger from this threat fires a burst to kill them, those bullets will go right through the target and into the crowd of innocents.

There is also the possibility the person in danger was already incapacitated and unable to defend themselves. We've all seen the video of the IDF forces on the ground being beaten by a mob. In such instances the aggressors have their back's to every other soldier, thus if shot will be shot in the back. Again doesn't mean it wasn't done in self defence.

You're also making huge assumptions based on a very vague list of injuries, which doesn't list even the severity of the wound. Was it a graze, ricochet, through and through? Were these wound inflicted simultaneously, seconds or minutes apart? Making even basic assumptions about the actions and motives of everyone or anyone on these boats; IDF and otherwise, without these crucial facts is patently ridiculous.

This is of course to the detraction of Israel that information is so limited, but also to yours that's you're shouting about Israel-apologists then claiming to have encyclopaedic knowledge of the incident from a 10 word description of injuries.

Also, batteries have been around a good while now; http://www.tooled-up.com/SubCategory...ID=34&SCID=394 and a weapon is a weapon. it doesn't matter how well equipped and armed you are, a guy with a rock(or in this case angle grinder) can quite easily kill you if you don't stop him.

The disparity of force is horrid and turns my stomach, but it doesn't take much to kill someone and what is the IDF supposed to do? Take their guns off them and go; "well they've only got angle grinders so you only get cordless drills"? If someone was charging toward me with a power tool, an iron bar or any other weapon and the intent to kill me or someone else with it, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot. Would you?

There is a lot of blame to go around for these deaths, mainly on the organiser's of the flotilla and commanders of the response in my mind. This is not some black and white situation like in the movies with good guys and bad guys. Just like most things in the real world I imagine when the truth finally comes out it will be a dull and sodden grey.

[aidanjt]

Illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal! illegal!

Keep saying illegal, without citing applicable international law, that'll convince us.