Gaza aid flotilla to set sail

[Disturbedguy]

No, the troopers repelled, didn't you see the video? And yes, sane people yield when force is applied to them and they have no means of matching that force. And frankly, if you take soldiers as hostages, you are a terrorist, and you're begging to make an acquaintance with Mr. Darwin.

Go read Kata's post at the top of this page.

The helicopter couldn't land fully on the deck but landed askew on the central station...

Sounds like a helicopter landing to me?

The soldiers had no rights boarding the ships until they posed a valid threat, at the distance they were from Gaza, they didn't pose a threat.

[aidanjt]

Go read Kata's post at the top of this page.

Sounds like a helicopter landing to me?

It was written by a journalist, a journalists probably in shock, or talking out of his ass. Look at the video, at least 4 troopers repelled onto the deck.

The soldiers had no rights boarding the ships until they posed a valid threat, at the distance they were from Gaza, they didn't pose a threat.

They had every right to board the ships. Again, distance is irrelevant, the key is their intent, which was to run the blockade. There was also 6 ships, boarding each takes time.

[jim]

The soldiers had no rights boarding the ships until they posed a valid threat, at the distance they were from Gaza, they didn't pose a threat.

They never posed a threat, and were never going to. Well, unless they suddenly took off the elaborate disguise and it transpired that they were actually sailing a destroyer.

The soldiers boarded because the boat broke/intended to break the naval blockade. That, in itself, is a perfectly valid "right to board" as far as I'm concerned.

If the blockade was illegal, then they wouldn't have the right to board - but as things stand, it isn't.

[Disturbedguy]

It was written by a journalist, a journalists probably in shock, or talking out of his ass. Look at the video, at least 4 troopers repelled onto the deck.

That's it, dismiss some other form of evidence, that doesn't paint the IDF in a bright shining light as rubbish or someone talking out of his or her ass.

If you read the article, you will see that the helicopter that landed, flew away then came back. There is no footage of this, whether that is because there is no footage, or whether the footage was confiscated by the IDF we will never know..unless of course the investigation is allowed to take place and any confiscated footage is released also.

[Disturbedguy]

They never posed a threat, and were never going to. Well, unless they suddenly took off the elaborate disguise and it transpired that they were actually sailing a destroyer.

The soldiers boarded because the boat broke/intended to break the naval blockade. That, in itself, is a perfectly valid "right to board" as far as I'm concerned.

If the blockade was illegal, then they wouldn't have the right to board - but as things stand, it isn't.

Yup, I understand this, however with the ships being as far out to see as they were, they didnt pose an immediate threat, when they posed an immediate threat, then board by all means, but until that point, they shouldnt have boarded.

[aidanjt]

That's it, dismiss some other form of evidence, that doesn't paint the IDF in a bright shining light as rubbish or someone talking out of his or her ass.

If you read the article, you will see that the helicopter that landed, flew away then came back. There is no footage of this, whether that is because there is no footage, or whether the footage was confiscated by the IDF we will never know..unless of course the investigation is allowed to take place and any confiscated footage is released also.

For the love of God, LAND WHERE? It's a ship, with masts, and cables. You do understand how a helicopter works, right? Blade spins around really really fast to stop it from dropping to the ground, kinda gets in the way when you're trying to land on ships lacking a helipad. The video clearly shows at least 4 troopers repelling to the deck. Or are you again, going to ignore 1st hand video evidence in leu of 2nd hand claims?

[jim]

Yup, I understand this, however with the ships being as far out to see as they were, they didnt pose an immediate threat, when they posed an immediate threat, then board by all means, but until that point, they shouldnt have boarded.

Do you not think that's just arguing semantics though?

We all know they were going to cross that blockade sooner or later. Whether they were stopped 60 miles from the coast or 20 miles from the coast doesn't really change much.

I'm sure that there could be legal connotations with regard to international waters and the like, but in terms of morality/fairness/etc it's not a major difference.

[TheAnimus]

At this point I think we're bogged down in the micro level, rather than the macro, so its worth taking a step back and just re-iterating my complaint, which I'm sure is that of many others.

Why not have an impartial investigation?

Turkish Ship, International waters, IDF shot dead nine.

They may well have 'had it coming', provoked etc, but the fact remains they should be entitled to a independent investigation? I thought that it was the flag of the vessel who's jurisdiction applied, so surely the Turkish should investigate?

[Disturbedguy]

For the love of God, LAND WHERE? It's a ship, with masts, and cables. You do understand how a helicopter works, right? Blade spins around really really fast to stop it from dropping to the ground, kinda gets in the way when you're trying to land on ships lacking a helipad. The video clearly shows at least 4 troopers repelling to the deck. Or are you again, going to ignore 1st hand video evidence in leu of 2nd hand claims?

Ok, first of all do NOT insult my intelligence, it gets you no where and makes you look rather petty to be quite frank.

I am only quoting to you what has already been said, from what is apparently 1st hand evidence/ accounts, as it came from a witness or are you only classing videos, that could have been edited as 1st hand evidence?

First hand video that has already been edited to high light certain things that could have also been edited to remove frames.

But nevermind eh? I will expect yet another insult from you.

[chuckskull]

The account of the helicopter landing was translated, probably automatically, not by a human.

In military terminology 'landing troops' doesn't require landing the helicopter, but if you rinse it through babelfish it can become unclear very quickly which they mean. I think you're arguing over a poor translation tbh.

If you take it as troops landing by helicopter, rather than a helicopter landing, that account seems to pretty much line up with others and video evidence.

[IBM]

At this point I think we're bogged down in the micro level, rather than the macro, so its worth taking a step back and just re-iterating my complaint, which I'm sure is that of many others.

Why not have an impartial investigation?

Turkish Ship, International waters, IDF shot dead nine.

They may well have 'had it coming', provoked etc, but the fact remains they should be entitled to a independent investigation? I thought that it was the flag of the vessel who's jurisdiction applied, so surely the Turkish should investigate?

Sounds good to me.

And as far as hiding anti-Israeli sentiment? Why bother? I experience the same contempt for the Israeli government and their hardline supporters as I did for the South African government during the apartheid...a bunch of arrogant idiots so blinded by their 'rights' that they ignore those of all others and absolutely believe that the end justifies the means.

Whether the individual elements of the situation are - or are not - illegal, the actions and the modus operandi of Israel are contemptable. Are they provoked? Yes. Do they deserve it? Absolutely.

[kalniel]

looking for martyrdom so they could have their 70 virgins.

It's raisins apparently

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

We need Aliens!

[Saracen]

At this point I think we're bogged down in the micro level, rather than the macro, so its worth taking a step back and just re-iterating my complaint, which I'm sure is that of many others.

Why not have an impartial investigation?

Turkish Ship, International waters, IDF shot dead nine.

They may well have 'had it coming', provoked etc, but the fact remains they should be entitled to a independent investigation? I thought that it was the flag of the vessel who's jurisdiction applied, so surely the Turkish should investigate?

I'm curious as to how you get from "impartial investigation" to "Turkish should investigate"? It seems to me that as an "impartial" investigation, Turkey are almost as "impartial" as Israel?

If it were to impartial, surely it needs to be someone without any form of hand in the game, finger in the pie. Arguably, some aspect of the UN, though I'm not convinced they're entirely impartial. Or perhaps the ICRC, though I'm not sure they'd want that particular poison chalice.

Also, of course, when it comes to nation states, it's virtually in possible to hold a full enquiry without the full cooperation of the state involved, in this case, Israel. For an inquiry to be effective, it needs to be able to compel witness attendance, subpoena records and evidence, etc. How far will such an inquiry go? Will it compel attendance of individual soldiers, for instance? And if so, where? And when those soldiers are queried on specific orders, will it then compel attendance of commanders, of command staff, of politicians, cabinet members?

Unless such an inquiry is given a very clear remit, very clear and fairly restricted terms of reference, it's rapidly going to risk ending up in areas where Israel would say it impinges on their sovereignty. You stand about as much chance of that as you do with the US over Iraq, with Russia over Chechnya or Georgia, with China over Tibet or with North Korea over any damn thing at all, let alone the use of torpedos.

And if you do restrict an inquiry in that way, it's going to be pretty meaningless, because whatever it comes up with, those with an axe to grind are going to reject it because it's terms of reference were limited and it "couldn't" get to the truth.

The sad fact is that we don't have an effective international policeman. The closest thing we have is the UN, and as I said before, it's largely a toothless dog without much of a bark, let alone bite. It's only really effective in terms of muscle if you can get all the major powers to back it militarily, or at least to stand aside and let the others back it. Hence, you might get action in Bosnia, or Rwanda, etc, but only because none of the big dogs said "no".

That, in my view, is the prime purpose of the security council. If the UN decides to act militarily in a conflict where a major power is likely to actively oppose that action, say, the UN decided to exercise jurisdiction over Tibet, the end result could be a very major war.The security council prevents that by effectively 'getting permission' from the big boys before saying or doing pretty much anything, which is why it's a toothless dog.

Nation states are sovereign, and short of going to war with them, we can't really compel then to do anything much. Case in point - North Korea. We can blockade them, cut them off, and they will no doubt suffer economically, but they can hunker down and put up with it. And NK have.

Iraq got away with an awful lot, until the US decided to do something about Saddam and his regime, and look how that worked out. And Iraq wasn't (despite Saddam's apparent efforts) nuclear armed. Israel, according to best information, probably is, though I don't believe they've ever officially confirmed that.

Short of some supremely powerful alien force arriving on Earth and setting itself up as the planet's police authority, it's hard to see how we ever will have a world policeman that's got teeth. Because the major powers have veto power, and because they all seem incapable of putting aside their own vested interests, it's hard to argue the UN is impartial. It's more a collection of partisan and partial parties to a committee, which might, sometimes, be able to reach a form of words that is just about acceptable to all the major parties, but it sure isn't a police authority with any power. It's rather like a policeman that says "I'm arresting you, if that's okay with you sir", and that will go away in a sulk, with tears in his eyes, if it turns out it isn't okay with "sir".

No nation state is likely to agree to a unlimited inquiry, and the limits will be problematical, as will authority to compel witness testimony, evidence or even attendance.

And even if you get an inquiry, a lot of it is likely to come down to whether the boarding was legal or not because the flotilla was running a blockade, which boils down to whether the blockade was legal or not.

Someone mentioned earlier hat they would defend themselves if an armed intruder broke into their home in the middle of the night. In so far as it was pragmatic, so would I, and with deadly force if necessary.

But .... if that "intruder" is a policeman with a search warrant, and I use force to resist him, it's a very different situation from the intruder being a burglar. Of course, the policeman has to identify himself as such, or I'm entitled to defend myself. But, from the accounts given, both parties to the Gaza incident knew who the other parties were, and pretty much what they were going to do. The flotilla had explicitly announced where it was going, and Israel had explicitly announced that it was not going to allow that to happen.

The first question any impartial inquiry is going to have to address is whether the policeman's search warrant was legally valid, i.e. was the blockade legal. Which brings me back to the question I've asked again and again ..... what court? Because only a court with jurisdiction can answer that. Anything else is opinion.

What you can guarantee is that one side is going to say "yes it is, because blah blah blah", and the other side is going to say "no it isn't, because blah blah blah".

So, there's two aspects to this. One is trying to get to the actual facts of what happened. The other is whether it was legal or not.

I can't see Israel agreeing to any inquiry that had the access and powers necessary to be reasonably confident of getting all the facts. It's not going to allow it's troops to face what it will see as a star chamber, and nor would the US, Russia, China, etc, in the situations I mentioned earlier. And on the legal front, there are a whole series of potential problems, not least of which is exactly what relevant international law actually is, and who decides it. Some of it comes from one treaty, some from another, some from agreed statute and some from "common" law, though exactly what that is and means is also open to intense dispute. And, if one aspect of law appears to say "yes" and another says "no", which supersedes which? For instance, a study for one very authoritative international body stated "accepted" international law on one area of maritime law I'm aware of (not directly relating to the current topic, so I won't go into details), and I also have the best part of 30 pages of memorandum, co-signed by very senior members of both US State and Defence departments giving detailed outline arguments of exactly why it is not only not "agreed", but wrong. Hence me keep saying "what court?" And on the same principle, what body can conduct such "impartial" inquiry?

[neonplanet40]

Shame the worlds in such a mess to be honest

Why can't people just live in peace and get along!

[directhex]

Shame the worlds in such a mess to be honest

Why can't people just live in peace and get along!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO6YlkYNJQ