Jump to content

israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters


michel555555

Recommended Posts

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html

 

for those who were following the fleet. What really erks me is that this was in international waters and of course the rest of the world is doing nothing as usual despite having members from 40 different countries on those ships.

michel555555.png

[spoiler=click you know you wanna]
Me behave? Seriously? As a child I saw Tarzan almost naked, Cinderella arrived home from a party after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladin was a thief, Batman drove over 200 miles an hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men, Popeye smoked a pipe and had tattoos, Pac man ran around to digital music while eating pills that enhanced his performance, and Shaggy and Scooby were mystery solving hippies who always had the munchies. The fault is not mine! if you had this childhood and loved it put this in your signature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 489
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's wait until the facts are known before jumping to conclusions.

 

For instance, what should countries do about their respective members that (possibly) attacked Israeli soldiers with knives and guns?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some quotes I translated from Hebrew:

 

1. "We got down there with bare arms and and "Paint-ball" guns, we were prepared for no violence, we thought we could end this in peace. As we were getting off the ropes, 15 of us, we noticed 30 people waiting on the roof. They were prepared for war, rushed at us and threw some of the soldiers to the floor below. Some of us jumped to the sea, out of fear of a second attack. We never thought we'd get to that point, we didn't come prepared with many weapons, other than the gun that was supposed to be a last resort." said one of the 15 soldiers.

 

2. A second one said: "It's funny to think about the way we treated all of this when we started preparing for the operation. We all understood we were going there to discuss things, not fight. Each of us had to deal with three-four men, and as a last resort, I took the gun out and started shooting their legs, because I knew I had to stop them. As we were getting off the rope, the passangers grabbed the rope and tied it to some iron parts, trying to disrupt the helicopter.

 

During the struggle we clearly identified shooting at our direction, from the ship."

 

3. The chief in command of the IDF, Gabbi Ashkenazi described the operation: "Tonight the navy operated in order to prevent unsupervised entry of men and cargo to the Gaza strip. After the requests on our part had proven to be a failure, the soldiers took over the ship. What happend on 'Marmara' isn't like the other ships. The second our forces reached the ship, violence trigged, with the usage of iron weaponry, poles, knives, and shooting. It was clear to me that said violence required reaction, and our soldiers did what they were told."

 

4. The commanding officer of the Israeli navy, Eliezer Marom said: "We went on our mission after notifying the ships, that apparently ignored the messages we sent them. Upon reaching 'Marmara', in which there were about 600 passangers, the soldiers were attacked with different weapons. In order to protect their own lives, our soldiers had to use weapons, so they could prevent their own deaths. At first our soldiers were restrained and tried to stop these occurences from happening. The result of 15 deaths could have been much worse."

 

 

 

 

Translating is tough :unsure: ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I think I've seen those somewhere before. Very interesting stuff.

 

Kind of supports my point, it's too early to know what happened.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has a right to make up their own minds, but video evidence always helps.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&has_verified=1

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Schmuall.png

give F2P a penny and they want a dime; give P2P a quarter, they want 100,000 dollars, your car, house, boat, social security number, credit card numbers, drivers license, clothes on your back and everything you ever owned or interacted with ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Zionism, my friends. Its true ugly face has once again reared its head. If it wasn't for Israel's blockade, these ships wouldn't have needed to travel there in the first place. To recap what the blockade has done:

 

* since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, "the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed" (More than 80 UN and aid agencies [.pdf])

 

* "61% of people in the Gaza Strip are food insecure," of which "65% are children under 18 years" (UN FAO)

 

* since June 2007, "the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled" (UNRWA)

 

* "in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%" (UN FAO)

 

Sources:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

 

To recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.

 

What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as "piracy" and demanding "that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes." When exactly did Isarel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.

 

What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as "piracy" and demanding "that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes." When exactly did Isarel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well?

If they had nothing to hide, which they claim, why would they object to being searched?

 

Given the fact stun grenades were used by the "activists" I think it isn't that far fetched to claim weapons might have been on board.

 

I agree with your claim about where it occurred, Israel had no right to check the ships while in international waters.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When exactly did Isarel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well?

When they became the only supporter of the United States in the entire Middle East. You'd be surprised the sort of things you can get away with when anytime you get into trouble you can call up the bloody Sasquatch to rip people's arms off.

 

--

 

And ty for posting those videos schmuall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn Zionist Jews.

 

Anyway, let's let Israel create ghettos for non-Jews and kill people; they need to get on even terms with everything after the Holocaust.

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.

 

What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as "piracy" and demanding "that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes." When exactly did Isarel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well?

If they had nothing to hide, which they claim, why would they object to being searched?

 

Given the fact stun grenades were used by the "activists" I think it isn't that far fetched to claim weapons might have been on board.

 

I agree with your claim about where it occurred, Israel had no right to check the ships while in international waters.

 

Well, do you even know what items Israel prevents from getting through their blockade? Many materials were on board the ship; things such as chocolate, biscuits, potato chips, fresh meat, coriander, industrial margarine are the food items prevented. Other banned goods include musical instruments, pens, notebooks, toys, cars, fridges and computers, as well as building materials like cement, iron, gravel, marble and some wood.

 

Of course they didn't want the IDF to search their ship. Anyone with half of a brain knows that the ship would be towed back to an Israeli port, where all of the listed items would be removed from their ship.

 

Give me a break. The Free Gaza Movement might irk some in their beliefs, but anyone familiar with them knows they are non-violent, and quite serious about that. Theyre also not stupid, which any group of civilians would have to be to intentionally get into a violent clash with a significant military force.

 

Israel has not only once again demonstrated their arrogance in thinking they're above all law, but they have quite possibly ruined any peace agreements that they had with Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. All this, and for what? To keep construction materials from the Gazan people?

 

They have actually provoked Turkey to the point that they may start a war over this massacre. You know what that means? Article 5. The US will be forced to choose: NATO, or Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I've seen so far suggests that Israel is in the wrong here. They do not have the right to insist that ships in international waters do anything, and so anything that occurred as a result of them attempting to board those ships was their own fault.

 

However, when I see stuff like this...

 

This is Zionism, my friends. Its true ugly face has once again reared its head.

...it's pretty clear that something else has "reared its head" as well. And it's not pretty.

 

Israel is over-zealous and reactionary, but the Palestinians are not the innocent victims being portrayed here. Well, most of the regular civilians are, but the government and the militants in Gaza bear responsibility for most of the woes that befall the people.

Qeltar, aka Charles Kozierok

Webmaster, RuneScoop - Premium RuneScape Information for Expert Players -- Now Free!

Featuring the Ultimate Guide to Dungeoneering -- everything you need to know to get the most of the new skill!

signew2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it wasn't for Israel's blockade, these ships wouldn't have needed to travel there in the first place. To recap what the blockade has done:

If it wasn't for the blockade, weapons would have been sent there in extremely large amounts. Do you have any idea how many times Israel had caught weapons sent there with the intent to harm Israel, including Israeli citizens? Through ships and tunnels?

 

 

To recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve.

 

These ships were unsupervised. Israel has a history with these things, it cannot let it go by without searching. Israel sent messages to all the ships, and 'Marmara' is the only one that started attacking. The rest weren't attacking, and were neither attacked.

 

 

 

Israel was wrong for doing it inside itnernational waters, but the same thing would have happened a few hours later in Israel's national water. I can't back up this theory, but I think what happened is that Israel took notice of these ships, knew they were unsupervised, and decided that the best thing that can be done is stop the ships as soon as possible.

 

 

 

 

'Marnara' DID contain weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mage there's a video up above that shows the soldiers being attacked.

 

And quit being so melodramatic.

 

I've seen the video. What's your point? I hardly think that being armed as well as the local 2nd grade class could constitute justifiable defense in the case of military soldiers illegally boarding an aid ship in international waters. What would you do if someone tried to illegally board your boat, knowing full well what would happen once the items I listed were found?

 

Through ships and tunnels?

 

Without those tunnels, the Palestinians might have already been successfully fully cleansed from the region. Those tunnels are their lifeblood.

 

Israel sent messages to all the ships, and 'Marmara' is the only one that started attacking. The rest weren't attacking, and were neither attacked.

 

I know how much of a staunch supporter of Israel that you are, romy, but this is completely unsubstantiated. Define "attacking" for me. If you mean by attacking "thwacking and throwing IDF soldiers overboard once they illegally boarded their ship," I would agree, but I wouldn't call that attacking.

 

'Marnara' DID contain weapons.

 

Yes, they did:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGiSpXmnQ0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some quotes I translated from Hebrew:

 

1. "We got down there with bare arms and and "Paint-ball" guns, we were prepared for no violence, we thought we could end this in peace. As we were getting off the ropes, 15 of us, we noticed 30 people waiting on the roof. They were prepared for war, rushed at us and threw some of the soldiers to the floor below. Some of us jumped to the sea, out of fear of a second attack. We never thought we'd get to that point, we didn't come prepared with many weapons, other than the gun that was supposed to be a last resort." said one of the 15 soldiers.

 

2. A second one said: "It's funny to think about the way we treated all of this when we started preparing for the operation. We all understood we were going there to discuss things, not fight. Each of us had to deal with three-four men, and as a last resort, I took the gun out and started shooting their legs, because I knew I had to stop them. As we were getting off the rope, the passangers grabbed the rope and tied it to some iron parts, trying to disrupt the helicopter.

 

During the struggle we clearly identified shooting at our direction, from the ship."

 

3. The chief in command of the IDF, Gabbi Ashkenazi described the operation: "Tonight the navy operated in order to prevent unsupervised entry of men and cargo to the Gaza strip. After the requests on our part had proven to be a failure, the soldiers took over the ship. What happend on 'Marmara' isn't like the other ships. The second our forces reached the ship, violence trigged, with the usage of iron weaponry, poles, knives, and shooting. It was clear to me that said violence required reaction, and our soldiers did what they were told."

 

4. The commanding officer of the Israeli navy, Eliezer Marom said: "We went on our mission after notifying the ships, that apparently ignored the messages we sent them. Upon reaching 'Marmara', in which there were about 600 passangers, the soldiers were attacked with different weapons. In order to protect their own lives, our soldiers had to use weapons, so they could prevent their own deaths. At first our soldiers were restrained and tried to stop these occurences from happening. The result of 15 deaths could have been much worse."

 

 

 

 

Translating is tough :unsure: ...

 

if you translated that yourself, massive grats. Also, Go Israel! you have every right to stop convoys supplying terrorists.

Linkzelda30.jpeg

image2ez.png

[hide=Siggy credits]The Awesome, Epic, Amazing, S3xah A-10 Sig By Unolexi! I wub u Uno!

InsanityV2 Did the Franz Ferdinand Sig.

Killerwatt is responsible for the Arctic Monkeys sig.

Pat_61 did the B-2 sig and the raptor sig.[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, do you even know what items Israel prevents from getting through their blockade? Many materials were on board the ship; things such as chocolate, biscuits, potato chips, fresh meat, coriander, industrial margarine are the food items prevented. Other banned goods include musical instruments, pens, notebooks, toys, cars, fridges and computers, as well as building materials like cement, iron, gravel, marble and some wood.

 

Of course they didn't want the IDF to search their ship. Anyone with half of a brain knows that the ship would be towed back to an Israeli port, where all of the listed items would be removed from their ship.

 

Give me a break. The Free Gaza Movement might irk some in their beliefs, but anyone familiar with them knows they are non-violent, and quite serious about that. They’re also not stupid, which any group of civilians would have to be to intentionally get into a violent clash with a significant military force.

 

Israel has not only once again demonstrated their arrogance in thinking they're above all law, but they have quite possibly ruined any peace agreements that they had with Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. All this, and for what? To keep construction materials from the Gazan people?

 

They have actually provoked Turkey to the point that they may start a war over this massacre. You know what that means? Article 5. The US will be forced to choose: NATO, or Israel.

 

So why were the first five ships searched without incident?

 

EDIT: Oh and Magekillr, I'm sure that when you have a gun and you're being beaten with a metal pipe that you won't use it.

 

 

Qeltar, what's wrong with being anti-Zionist?

 

Are you implying that we're being anti-Semitic?

The problem with your post is that you imply Israel is the only party at fault here.

 

Israel shouldn't have searched the ships in international waters.

Israel shouldn't be confiscating anything other than weapons.

 

The activists shouldn't have decided to attack the soldiers (because it was a very stupid idea more than anything).

The palestinian government shouldn't be condoning the terrorist attacks that hit Israel regularly.

 

No one is innocent here - I'm no fan of the reactions Israel has taken here but you do have to remember they are up against significant opposition.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qeltar, what's wrong with being anti-Zionist?

 

Are you implying that we're being anti-Semitic?

I don't believe the two are the same. But I do believe one is often used as a cover for the other.

 

There's no way for me to read anyone's mind and know for sure what they are thinking. But when some of the rhetoric goes over the top, the balance of probabilities begins to tip.

 

The reality to any objective observer is that both parties are right in many ways and wrong in many ways. This isn't a simple situation and there is no simple, easily-identified "bad guy". When an individual tries to boil down an event into something to entirely damn one side and portray the other as innocent victims, it is easy to tell that there's an agenda at work.

 

So why were the first five ships searched without incident?

It doesn't bloody well matter. They had no right to search the ships, period.

 

"You'd be glad to give up your rights if you had nothing to hide" is the creed of tyrants and sheeple.

 

Israel instigated this incident and is responsible for the outcome.

Qeltar, aka Charles Kozierok

Webmaster, RuneScoop - Premium RuneScape Information for Expert Players -- Now Free!

Featuring the Ultimate Guide to Dungeoneering -- everything you need to know to get the most of the new skill!

signew2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Marnara' DID contain weapons.

 

Thats where things get a little hinky for me. "IF" the Marnara did have weapons and if israel really did alert the ships that they were being borded then wouldn't they have used them instead of sticks and stones? From what i can tell they only used sticks and stones and a few small arms which makes me feel like they were surprised and whatever arms they did have on board were only for self defense.

 

If out of the blue an armed helicopter starts droping armed soldiers onto your boat with guns pointed at you what would you do?

michel555555.png

[spoiler=click you know you wanna]
Me behave? Seriously? As a child I saw Tarzan almost naked, Cinderella arrived home from a party after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladin was a thief, Batman drove over 200 miles an hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men, Popeye smoked a pipe and had tattoos, Pac man ran around to digital music while eating pills that enhanced his performance, and Shaggy and Scooby were mystery solving hippies who always had the munchies. The fault is not mine! if you had this childhood and loved it put this in your signature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Qeltar, what's wrong with being anti-Zionist?

 

Are you implying that we're being anti-Semitic?

I don't believe the two are the same. But I do believe one is often used as a cover for the other.

 

There's no way for me to read anyone's mind and know for sure what they are thinking. But when some of the rhetoric goes over the top, the balance of probabilities begins to tip.

 

The reality to any objective observer is that both parties are right in many ways and wrong in many ways. This isn't a simple situation and there is no simple, easily-identified "bad guy". When an individual tries to boil down an event into something to entirely damn one side and portray the other as innocent victims, it is easy to tell that there's an agenda at work.

 

So why were the first five ships searched without incident?

It doesn't bloody well matter. They had no right to search the ships, period.

 

"You'd be glad to give up your rights if you had nothing to hide" is the creed of tyrants and sheeple.

 

Israel instigated this incident and is responsible for the outcome.

I agree they had no right to search the ships. I've never denied that.

 

However, even though I'd be damn upset that my rights were being violated it wouldn't tarnish my reputation by resorting to violence.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, do you even know what items Israel prevents from getting through their blockade? Many materials were on board the ship; things such as chocolate, biscuits, potato chips, fresh meat, coriander, industrial margarine are the food items prevented. Other banned goods include musical instruments, pens, notebooks, toys, cars, fridges and computers, as well as building materials like cement, iron, gravel, marble and some wood.

 

You forgot weapons and ammo, sent with the intent to harm Israeli citizens. Israel supplys what it can to the Gaza strip, but it cannot let weapons reach the hands of the Hamas, that's just irrational.

 

Of course they didn't want the IDF to search their ship. Anyone with half of a brain knows that the ship would be towed back to an Israeli port, where all of the listed items would be removed from their ship.

Then why did the rest of the ships have no problem with being searched? They weren't aggressive, they let the soldiers do their thing and leave.

 

Israel has not only once again demonstrated their arrogance in thinking they're above all law, but they have quite possibly ruined any peace agreements that they had with Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. All this, and for what? To keep construction materials from the Gazan people?

It's very, very, very unlikely that any of these 3 countries would break the peace agreements. You'll live to see that statement has no valid basis.

 

They have actually provoked Turkey to the point that they may start a war over this massacre. You know what that means? Article 5. The US will be forced to choose: NATO, or Israel.

Turkey is currently very biased against Israel, which can be seen by what's going inside of Turkey, and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Zionism, my friends. Its true ugly face has once again reared its head.

...it's pretty clear that something else has "reared its head" as well. And it's not pretty.

 

Israel is over-zealous and reactionary, but the Palestinians are not the innocent victims being portrayed here. Well, most of the regular civilians are, but the government and the militants in Gaza bear responsibility for most of the woes that befall the people.

 

You're making the mistake of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Are the two sometimes overlapping? Most certainly; in fact I think a lot of antisemites use it as cover for their racism in the same way that homophobes use "teh marriage is sacred!" Ahmadinejad is most certainly both, as is Hamas and Hezbollah. However, just because I mentioned the word "Zionism" and used it in the pejorative gives no evidence that I am antisemitic. My views on this issue are those of Noam Chomsky: I oppose a Jewish state, just the same as I oppose a Muslim or a Christian state. Any country defining itself on grounds such as those is bound to mistreat any minority in the region, and that can not only be seen in philosophical theory, but in the harsh reality of the world. I suspect when the world becomes more secular that there's going to be the need to protect all of the religious, not just whatever religious minority is in a particular region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot weapons and ammo, sent with the intent to harm Israeli citizens.

1. I haven't seen any objective evidence that such was on the ship.

 

2. If Israel was worried about that, it could have and should have dealt with it in some way OTHER than violating international waters. All they had to do was stop them from landing, and if they suspected arms were on board, ask for a third party to inspect.

 

But no, Israel seems to think that the rule of law doesn't apply to it -- they are wrong.

 

Turkey is currently very biased against Israel, which can be seen by what's going inside of Turkey, and out.

And so Israel goes and gives them good reason to be biased against them? Brilliant tactical move, guys.

 

You're making the mistake of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Are the two sometimes overlapping? Most certainly. Ahmadinejad is most certainly both, as is Hamas and Hezbollah. However, just because I mentioned the word "Zionism" and used it in the pejorative gives no evidence that I am antisemitic. My views on this issue are those of Noam Chomsky: I oppose a Jewish state, just the same as I oppose a Muslim or a Christian state. Any country defining itself on grounds such as those is bound to mistreat any minority in the region, and that can not only be seen in philosophical theory, but in the harsh reality of the world. I suspect when the world becomes more secular that there's going to be the need to protect all of the religious, not just whatever religious minority is in a particular region.

Thanks for the clarification, but if you're going to damn countries based on religious focus, guess what? Israel is the only country in the entire area that provides reasonable rights to those of minority religions. So you should temper your viewpoints on that basis.

 

And your rhetoric does come across as anti-Semitic, at least to me. It's one thing to criticize some of what they do, but you appear to have bought the whole "Gaza is an innocent victim of Jewish oppression" bullspit -- hook, line and sinker.

 

If the people of Gaza want a better life, they could start by not electing a government devoted to eternal war with its most important neighbor. Hard to have good relations after that.

Qeltar, aka Charles Kozierok

Webmaster, RuneScoop - Premium RuneScape Information for Expert Players -- Now Free!

Featuring the Ultimate Guide to Dungeoneering -- everything you need to know to get the most of the new skill!

signew2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.