israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[Romy]

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

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ThnBlBxxA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

 

Not that cut and dry.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Did Israel warn them over a loudspeaker or something they were going to be searched before they choppered in? And why not just search the boats individually as they came in, yes it would take longer but if they were really looking for weapons it would be more thorough and apparently safer? Another thing is these were people of many nationalities, from what I heard the ship the boarded was under a Turkish flag, I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if that was an act of war to send armed soldiers onto another country's ship without warning. As for the demonstrators attacking the soldiers, again we come back to the weather or not they were told they were being searched, I'd freak the hell out if people in riot gear and guns were fast roping onto my ship too. Imo after seeing the videos of the activists it all comes down to weather or not they were warned. i realize it seems counter intuitive to warn them they are being searched, but the worse that can happen is they try to hide any weapons on the ship, which you could largely prevent by ordering all hands up on deck, and then searching, or they throw the weapons over the side, and since they had cameras watching the ship, problem solved there, see them throwing stuff overboard, send in divers afterward.

 

I'll be the first to say that Israel has [bleep]ed up in the past, and I'm all for aid getting to the people being blockaded but I just don't think I know the RIGHT info at the moment to make a decision about this particular fiasco.

 

Also the thing which that video called a "firebomb" was a pretty [cabbage]ty firebomb if it was one.

 

EDIT: After seeing the video was at night I kinda doubt the Israeli navy warned them. Thus making it look more to me like Israel [bleep]ed up big time.

 

Another Edit: I quickly glanced at the article that roccodog posted above, and it said something about them wanting to kill activists to deter future aid flotillas. I don't mean to sound like an alarmist but, if you think about it isn't completely unplausable. Drop a medium-large sized special forces team in in the middle of the night, fake the demonstrators attacking first, you could probably kill everyone on the boat... would YOU want to go on the next convoy knowing an entire boatload of people were killed. This is an extreme example but I'm sorry i have to say I could see them getting away with it.

[assassin_696]

I don't quite recall, lol. I watched it on the news a few hours ago, but the weather is frying my head.

 

 

Anyway, it had something to do with article 51 of the UNC. Either way, the Marmara's clear inacceptance of the Israeli requests not to enter it's territorial waters puts doubt to the illegality of Israel's actions.

 

They're invoking the right to engage in military action in self defence?? If they are that's beyond clutching at straws, but whatever. The Marmara not accepting the Israeli's requests to turn round still doesn't put doubt to the illegality of Israel's actions, the intentions of the Marmara are irrelevant, except in the very special circumstances when there was a clear and present danger to life in Gaza by the Marmara reaching the blockade (Israel could never justify that in a million years) and so the Marmara is still protected by the Laws of the Sea.

[sees_all1]

http://story.birminghamstar.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/642270/cs/1/

doesn't sound like provocation to me.

You even going to bother to try to find an unbiased source to form an opinion?

 

EDIT: missed this --

"All they had to do was stop the ship from docking"

How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm? You can do any of those, and the only difference between being fully justified and being chastised is the location, which was about 60 km away from their national waters. Had they "stopped" the ship in their "national" waters, they would've be completely justified in whatever manner they chose, including blowing the damn thing out of the water.

 

If an unauthorized plane flies within 10 miles of the US capital, you'd better believe there will be jets scrambled into the air, and if the thing refuses to acknowledge communications it will be shot down. If that happens, its justified. If it happened 5 miles further than that, its scrutinized. Its the exact same thing.

 

Um, no, that would effectively be a war crime. A plane is different because it poses a more obvious clear and present danger and there aren't many ways of stopping one other than shooting it down. Stopping a slow moving ship is an entirely different matter, especially when the ship had been checked in Turkey under the Customs Act and was known to be delivering humanitarian aid.

The fact remains that Israel repeatedly sent them messages to stop. The other 5 ships did stop. Does this seem odd to you?

A ship that doesn't acknowledge your communications and doesn't respect your sovereignty as a nation is a threat. I'll maintain that Israel's only fault in the matter is not doing this within their national waters.

[Matok]

 

Israel is being roundly -- and rightly -- criticized by many, MANY people who never had much of anything bad to say about the country before.

 

That includes me.

 

Anyone who supports a country no matter what it does is a sheep. It is the responsibility of informed, intelligent people to criticize bad policy and inappropriate acts to reduce the chances of them happening again.

i have no problem with people criticizing us - no matter what we say, fact remains, 9 people are dead .

But I just can't stand the fact that people read the reports, see the pictures,and still they choose to put things up side down.

 

a soldier lying on the deck get lynched by 4-5 men with steel poles axes and knifes= "innocent peace activests" .

a soldier gets stabbed time after time by a man without responding = "they have the right to refuse the search"

and on and on.what can i say - typical peace activists.

 

I can assure you that not a single Israeli is happy with the results ,no one boarded this ship in intesion to kill people - not that it helps now.

 

 

I hate the fact that all the anti-israeli (also in this forum) now celebrate our failure and use this oppurtinity to re-question our very legitimacy as a country.

Yes, you are very moral people, sitting in your comfortable chairs in your friendly neighborhood, i wish we had the same privilege.

[qeltar]

How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm?

You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

All they had to do was physically interpose themselves between the ship and the dock. Or they could have disabled it. Nearly anything would have been smarter than what they did.

 

You can do any of those, and the only difference between being fully justified and being chastised is the location, which was about 60 km away from their national waters. Had they "stopped" the ship in their "national" waters, they would've be completely justified in whatever manner they chose, including blowing the damn thing out of the water.

If the ship had been in Israeli national waters, the people on the ship might have realized where they were and not have resisted being boarded. I guess you never considered *that*? :rolleyes:

 

Location matters. There are borders for a reason.

 

If an unauthorized plane flies within 10 miles of the US capital, you'd better believe there will be jets scrambled into the air, and if the thing refuses to acknowledge communications it will be shot down. If that happens, its justified. If it happened 5 miles further than that, its scrutinized. Its the exact same thing.

An unauthorized plane 10 miles from the US capitol represents an imminent threat. A ship plodding through the ocean 60 miles from the coast, which is flying a Turkish flag and has an Israeli MP on it, does not.

 

Congratulations on what has got to be the most utterly inane analogy I've read in a long time.

 

The blockade is absolutely necessary for Israel's self preservation, and anyone is obtuse to think otherwise.

This isn't about the blockade as a whole. It is about Israel attacking a ship in international waters, a ship that had already been inspected by a NATO member and posed no threat.

 

They didn't go after the ship because they were worried about "self preservation" -- that is a bald, flat-out lie. They did it to intimidate. Only it backfired.

 

As for the blockade itself, I *used* to agree that it was necessary for Israel's self-preservation, but as a result of this event I am questioning even that. When you look at the list of items not allowed into Gaza, there is NO WAY to justify many of them on the basis of concern over Hamas attacking Israel. Unless you think chickens, nutmeg and guitars are lethal weapons. :rolleyes:

 

What about using a weapon for self defence after you were attacked with a knife? Is that illegal?

How exactly do you come around to distorting this so that the *Israelis* are the victims? LOL.

 

The first act of aggression was taken by the Israeli soldiers. They do not get to claim self-defence.

 

Over simplifying things isn't usually a good thing when it comes to legality.

You mean like claiming that Israel can do whatever it wants if it gets skeered, or repeating "searching the ships was obligatory" a dozen times even after you've admitted that it wasn't?

[qeltar]

A ship that doesn't acknowledge your communications and doesn't respect your sovereignty as a nation is a threat.

Utter bullcrap. In order to be a threat worthy of justifying a violent response, they have to have the ability to actually cause imminent harm. That ship didn't qualify by any rational definition.

 

But I just can't stand the fact that people read the reports, see the pictures,and still they choose to put things up side down.

 

a soldier lying on the deck get lynched by 4-5 men with steel poles axes and knifes= "innocent peace activests" .

a soldier gets stabbed time after time by a man without responding = "they have the right to refuse the search"

and on and on.what can i say - typical peace activists.

 

I can assure you that not a single Israeli is happy with the results ,no one boarded this ship in intesion to kill people - not that it helps now.

 

 

I hate the fact that all the anti-israeli (also in this forum) now celebrate our failure and use this oppurtinity to re-question our very legitimacy as a country.

Yes, you are very moral people, sitting in your comfortable chairs in your friendly neighborhood, i wish we had the same privilege.

Unlike some of the apologists on this thread, you strike me as a rational individual. And I know this has to be very difficult for the people in Israel who are looking at this objectively.

 

For the record, I don't think the people on this boat were "peaceniks", and I've already said I think they bear some of the blame for what happened. I also don't think this is a reason to question Israel's right to exist or anything like that.

 

But dude, your country is going off the rails. People are criticizing because they expect Israel to be better than this.

 

If Israel loses its moral authority, it will cease to exist. That is guaranteed. The criticism shouldn't be bothering you nearly so much as who is doing it, and why.

[SeanyTheSailor]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

[Romy]

Ahh, there we go again. ;)

 

What about using a weapon for self defence after you were attacked with a knife? Is that illegal?

How exactly do you come around to distorting this so that the *Israelis* are the victims? LOL.

 

The first act of aggression was taken by the Israeli soldiers. They do not get to claim self-defence.

 

You're the one who judged magekillr for being one sided. It wasn't cut and dry. As I had mentioned, the illegality of Israel's actions is questioned because of the Marmara clearly saying it will ignore the IDF's instructions not to enter Israel's territorial waters. That means Israel could legally use proportional force.

 

If the force used is justified, then yes, the soldiers are very much victims. Not the only victims, but victims nonetheless.

 

Over simplifying things isn't usually a good thing when it comes to legality.

You mean like claiming that Israel can do whatever it wants if it gets skeered, or repeating "searching the ships was obligatory" a dozen times even after you've admitted that it wasn't?

 

I never admitted a search wasn't obligatory, I admitted it could, and possibly should've been done later, not that it shouldn't have at all.

 

 

 

@321Ownage- Yes, warnings were sent multiple times. The message the IDF rceived back is that these warnings are to be ignored.

[sees_all1]

How do you stop a ship? Disable it? Kill everyone on board? Blow it out of the water? Wrest control of the ship's helm?

You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

All they had to do was physically interpose themselves between the ship and the dock. Or they could have disabled it. Nearly anything would have been smarter than what they did.

Do you agree that the primary wrong doing in this incident is the location it was carried out? I.E. if the exact same thing happened ~10 km off the coast of Israel, Israel would not be at fault?

[Romy]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

[SeanyTheSailor]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way.

[The_Gabe]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way.

 

 

According to the U.S media, the United States controls the good and bad of the world, and because of Obama's crappy leadership, it was showing weak leadership. I was going in my head what the [bleep]. U.S's support for Israel is important, but they don't do anything for Israel war relating. As the prime minister said today in this speech "The world is giving us a double standard. They are telling us we have the rights to defend ourselves, and when we do, we get criticized for it. We are guilty until proven guilty."

 

No matter how you see it, this had to be done. Also Qeltar, did you even see the video for god's sake?

[SeanyTheSailor]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way.

 

 

According to the U.S media, the United States controls the good and bad of the world, and because of Obama's crappy leadership, it was showing weak leadership. I was going in my head what the [bleep]. U.S's support for Israel is important, but they don't do anything for Israel war relating. As the prime minister said today in this speech "The world is giving us a double standard. They are telling us we have the rights to defend ourselves, and when we do, we get criticized for it. We are guilty until proven guilty."

 

No matter how you see it, this had to be done. Also Qeltar, did you even see the video for god's sake?

I understand your point. I guess the thing I want to know FOR SURE is weather they warned them or not. As I stated b4, if they were told, even from a loudspeaker like less than 5 mins b4 they were going to be searched they had no right to attack those soldiers. But once again if guys with guns just start dropping onto your boat/ hooking on I think you'd freak the hell out too.

 

Thats what I mean by, I understand their need to do something, it just seems like they always do it the worst way. I'm trying to remain fairly unbiased on this incident but like I said that last vid of romy's that showed them boarding at night kinda tipped the scales for me.

[Romy]

They were, I already told you...

 

@321Ownage- Yes, warnings were sent multiple times. The message the IDF rceived back is that these warnings are to be ignored.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Is there audio of these warnings? If they have video of their soldiers getting beaten up then I'd think they'd have audio of the warning being sent. Also i didnt see your post b4.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way.

Normally when you take over land that doesn't belong to you and you piss off a very brotherly culture with a hotheaded tendency you're going to meet trouble when you plant your officials amongst their activists. There isn't really a good way to handle this situation. Quite frankly if I commanding the IDF I would have blown all the ships out of the water because of the "need to defend" [or rather the need to suppress starving conquered people, which ever you like better].

 

 

 

Edit: And please, I trust a Comedy Central skit more than an Israeli Military report, I had to write a paper on my choosing. Three primary documents I used, The Clark Clifford Report, a New York Times Article 1967 and the Yerushalmi Report 1982 made it quite clear of Israel's deception. The Clifford Report was completely plausible, the New York Times article stated they asked the ship to ID themselves and they said ID yourselves first and IDF suspected them of being an Egyptian ship because of the response because an Egyptian ship said that 13yrs ago, regardless that they were flagging an American flag, traveling 5knots [israel claims 30 which exceeded its capacity] and had USS Liberty written in English on the side [as opposed to Arabic]. Then the Yerushalmi Report claimed it had no flags flying, it was traveling 30 knots [capacity 18knots] and I forget the primary reason but it contradicted their first reasoning. The point is, Israeli military reports are not a credible source regardless of being issued by a government.

[qeltar]

I'm not quite sure Israel would even exist as a country without the US being on its side.

It wouldn't.

 

You're the one who judged magekillr for being one sided. It wasn't cut and dry. As I had mentioned, the illegality of Israel's actions is questioned because of the Marmara clearly saying it will ignore the IDF's instructions not to enter Israel's territorial waters. That means Israel could legally use proportional force.

If and when they did so. Not before.

 

If the force used is justified

It wasn't.

 

Not only was it illegal, it was immoral.

 

And they knew it, and they did it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to stop the ship, and so they stopped the ship, and they really don't care about what anyone thinks or if anyone gets hurt. That's what Israel is turning into.

 

I never admitted a search wasn't obligatory, I admitted it could, and possibly should've been done later, not that it shouldn't have at all.

You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight.

 

Do you agree that the primary wrong doing in this incident is the location it was carried out? I.E. if the exact same thing happened ~10 km off the coast of Israel, Israel would not be at fault?

Primary? Maybe. Contributory? Of course.

 

I understand your point. I guess the thing I want to know FOR SURE is weather they warned them or not. As I stated b4, if they were told, even from a loudspeaker like less than 5 mins b4 they were going to be searched they had no right to attack those soldiers.

Should they have attacked the soldiers? No.

 

Did they have the right to attack them? Debatable.

 

The mere announcement of a warning doesn't give Israel the right to do whatever the hell it wants and to expect to be greeted with a shower of rose petals.

[The_Gabe]

I'm sick of Israel being the US's baby. It's time to stand up for everything that America was founded upon, regardless of past friendships.

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us.

I remember that covnversation.

 

I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way.

Normally when you take over land that doesn't belong to you and you piss off a very brotherly culture with a hotheaded tendency you're going to meet trouble when you plant your officials amongst their activists. There isn't really a good way to handle this situation. Quite frankly if I commanding the IDF I would have blown all the ships out of the water because of the "need to defend" [or rather the need to suppress starving conquered people, which ever you like better].

 

Yeah, and you take over the land because they are ATTACKING YOUR CIVILIANS BECAUSE THEY DON"T BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXIST.

 

In my opinion, there wasn't any other way to handle the situation.

[qeltar]

In my opinion, there wasn't any other way to handle the situation.

And what is this opinion based upon?

[fakeitormakeit2]

And in response to the acclaimed Israeli messages, please, I trust a Comedy Central skit more than an Israeli Military report, I had to write a paper on my choosing. Three primary documents I used, The Clark Clifford Report, a New York Times Article 1967 and the Yerushalmi Report 1982 made it quite clear of Israel's deception. The Clifford Report was completely plausible, the New York Times article stated they asked the ship to ID themselves and they said ID yourselves first and IDF suspected them of being an Egyptian ship because of the response because an Egyptian ship said that 13yrs ago, regardless that they were flagging an American flag, traveling 5knots [israel claims 30 which exceeded its capacity] and had USS Liberty written in English on the side [as opposed to Arabic, even if you don't read either in English its USS Liberty, the Arabic ship's name was ألارش totally similar right?]. Then the Yerushalmi Report claimed it had no flags flying, it was traveling 30 knots [capacity 18knots], was gray like a warship (-.-) and I forget the primary reason but it contradicted their first reasoning. The point is, Israeli military reports are not a credible source regardless of being issued by a government.

[Romy]

If the force used is justified

It wasn't.

 

Not only was it illegal, it was immoral.

 

And they knew it, and they did it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to stop the ship, and so they stopped the ship, and they really don't care about what anyone thinks or if anyone gets hurt. That's what Israel is turning into.

 

Again, the illegality of the issue is being questioned, since the Marmara clearly decided to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters.

 

I never admitted a search wasn't obligatory, I admitted it could, and possibly should've been done later, not that it shouldn't have at all.

You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight.

 

I did not.

[SeanyTheSailor]

i again propose, why did israel not allow them into port, search everyone and everything coming off the ship. That way THEY were in control of the situation. International media would probably be covering it and it wouldnt be a their word against ours situation. They could even have the ships under 24/7 guard for pete's sake. The only thing that Israel could conceivably take the fall for is further delaying the flow of supplies to the people. It looks a hell of a lot better in a history book than 20 People dead. heck it probably wouldnt even make the history books.

[assassin_696]

You're the one who judged magekillr for being one sided. It wasn't cut and dry. As I had mentioned, the illegality of Israel's actions is questioned because of the Marmara clearly saying it will ignore the IDF's instructions not to enter Israel's territorial waters. That means Israel could legally use proportional force.

 

No it doesn't, please don't think that. Furthermore, if the crew of the Marmara believed that force was being used against them without legal justification (and in this case force could be defined as armed soldiers descending via helicopter) then legally they're entitled to defend themselves.

[Romy]

So Israel killed some people... because they were afraid that these people might bring guns...

No, these people were killed after lynching the soldiers.