Israeli military cleared over flotilla raid

Lumen · 24-01-2011 09:39AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why were the Civillians on board the Ship Retarded for trying yo repel an illegal boarding by People intent on killing them??

Regardless of intent, actual or perceived, hitting an armed soldier with a stick is more likely to get you killed than not doing so. Particularly when that soldier is Israeli.

That's just plain common sense.

Or maybe you think your stick fighting skills are sufficient to win against someone armed with guns, knives and Krav Maga training?

Snakeblood · 24-01-2011 10:58AM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Nor would they be convinced were Israel independently exonerated.

Well, I would.

FlutterinBantam · 24-01-2011 11:01AM

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

No surprises there, I think it is a disgrace and while I certainly don't support Hamas laws and practices, there is clearly something very wrong about this.

Absolutely no surprise, total media spin on the whole issue, vested interests and left wingers tried to muddy the waters but as always the truth will emerge from the propaganda.

these people might think again before pulling a stunt like that in that area.

wes · 24-01-2011 11:05AM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Absolutely no surprise, total media spin on the whole issue, vested interests and left wingers tried to muddy the waters but as always the truth will emerge from the propaganda.

these people might think again before pulling a stunt like that in that area.

Man, the whole left wingers etc stuff is getting old.

Also, to claim that this some how reveals some kind of truth, is a joke. Sure, why not have Hamas investigate the incident and then ask people to take there investigation seriously? As I said earlier, the only people who will take this seriously are the people who already support Israel. The report is essentially flawed due to the accused investigating itself.

Lumen · 24-01-2011 11:11AM

wes wrote: »

The report is essentially flawed due to the accused investigating itself.

I could accuse you of bias due to your sig. Does that make your opinion worthless?

24-01-2011 11:17AM

I'd say this has as much value as, say for example, a financial regulator sitting on a bank committee, regulating that bank

squod · 24-01-2011 11:18AM

squod wrote: »

Commence re-regging and shit stirring in 10, 9, 8

Blastoff..............

Lumen wrote: »

Ignoring instructions from a military blockade also seems like asking for trouble, particularly when that military is not known for it's proportional responses.

Lumen · 24-01-2011 11:24AM

squod wrote: »

Blastoff..............

I'm not shít stirring. I came on this thread admitting ignorance and asking for information, and got nothing.

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum.

wes · 24-01-2011 11:31AM

Lumen wrote: »

I could accuse you of bias due to your sig. Does that make your opinion worthless?

You could accuse me of bias, and I could care less. Why anyone would have a problem with saving the people of Gaza from an inhuman blockade is beyond me, and if that makes me biased, then I am guilty as charged. If someone has issue with that position, it says more about them than me.

Of course, we aren't talking about bias, we are talking about the accused (Israel) declaring itself innocent. That is nonsense, and trying to make this about other posters is a typically bankrupt tactic we often see on these threads.

Lumen · 24-01-2011 11:35AM

wes wrote: »

Of course, we aren't talking about bias, we are talking about the accused (Israel) declaring itself innocent. That is nonsense, and trying to make this about other posters is a typically bankrupt tactic we often see on these threads.

I'm not trying to make this about you. It was a simple example illustrating that bias is not a sufficient reason to entirely discount a viewpoint.

In the absence of any actual discussion, I'm out.

wes · 24-01-2011 11:39AM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not trying to make this about you. It was a simple example illustrating that bias is not a sufficient reason to entirely discount a viewpoint.

Oh please, you made it about me, by making claims about my bias, and as I pointed out, this goes beyond bias, and we are not talking about a view point here, but rather Israel declaring themselves innocent, based on there own investigation. Basically, the accused party investigating themselves and saying there innocent on that basis, if you can't see the problem with that, then there really is no way to have a reasonable discussion.

Lumen wrote: »

In the absence of any actual discussion, I'm out.

Considering that you didn't engage with any such discussion on the first place....

Lumen · 24-01-2011 11:42AM

wes wrote: »

Considering that you didn't engage with any such discussion on the first place....

I entered this thread with this...

Lumen wrote: »

I have no particular axe to grind, but can someone link to information which describes the incident from something approaching an objective perspective?

It was a genuine question. I got nothing in response except for accusations of trolling.

Gunsfortoys · 24-01-2011 11:51AM

Lumen wrote: »

I entered this thread with this...

It was a genuine question. I got nothing in response except for accusations of trolling.

Have you even read the quoted article?

In September, three international experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate the attack said it had been unlawful and resulted in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

How the hell can you call three international experts biased?

jackiebaron · 24-01-2011 11:51AM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Anyone read the report or will we just kick in with the anti Israeli sentiment automatically?

What's anti-Israeli about criticising criminals investigating themselves.
It's akin to a redneck sheriff and his deputies "investigating" reports of Klan violence against blacks in Mississippi and him coming back saying "No, sireee! Nothing strange happening here. Just a quiet little community. But if anything does turn up, we'll be sure and let you know".

Farcical.

Lumen · 24-01-2011 11:54AM

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Have you even read the quoted article?

How the hell can you call three international experts biased?

Yes, I read the article.

Did those experts make a formal report? Do you have a link to it?

Gunsfortoys · 24-01-2011 12:01PM

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, I read the article.

Did those experts make a formal report? Do you have a link to it?

Jesus ever hear of google? The UN report

Lumen · 24-01-2011 12:29PM

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Jesus ever hear of google? The UN report

The two things that really stand out for me are:

"At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck...it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers"

...and:

"A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives. At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object."

They're all completely nuts. Which is in no way an attempt to equalise the blame, or weigh up one set of stupidity against the other. Most of the passengers were not fighting and apparently had no intention of doing so, including some of those who died.

As I said, I have no axe to grind.

Thanks for the link.

fedor.2. · 24-01-2011 12:42PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Always knew Israel was in the right in this story. Glad thats that sorted.

I agree. Thank God its all been cleared up now.

prinz · 24-01-2011 12:49PM

Israel finds for itself....shocker. I am sure if you asked the other groups involved they would come out of it whiter than white too. Good to see the inquiry seemingly calling for a review of the blockading tactics which I don't think has been mentioned yet on the thread.

aDeener · 24-01-2011 01:18PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

But the article says they were in the right.

pathetic. what age are you?

Manic Moran · 24-01-2011 06:47PM

Lumen wrote: »

I have no particular axe to grind, but can someone link to information which describes the incident from something approaching an objective perspective?

No.

I think the best we're going to get is going to be the UN report which will be out in a while. I look forward to it with some interest.

NTM

enfant terrible · 24-01-2011 07:19PM

Who do you support? My buddy's Israel. I'm Palestine. Makes the news more interesting.

Badgermonkey · 24-01-2011 07:40PM

wes wrote: »

Why anyone would have a problem with saving the people of Gaza from an inhuman blockade is beyond me

I certainly don't.

I've a problem with jihadists being allowed onboard who masqueraded as and hid behind genuine activists.

Badgermonkey · 24-01-2011 07:47PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

What's anti-Israeli about criticising criminals investigating themselves.
It's akin to a redneck sheriff and his deputies "investigating" reports of Klan violence against blacks in Mississippi and him coming back saying "No, sireee! Nothing strange happening here. Just a quiet little community. But if anything does turn up, we'll be sure and let you know".

Farcical.

So you've found them guilty of a crime without due process?

Then you proceed with your deep south parable

Also I said in follow up 'The UN report should certainly provide an examination of the events of last may with an authority the Israeli Commission cannot possibly possess.'

RichieC · 24-01-2011 07:54PM

Israel does what it likes, I say again... sh*t, they open fire on a US intelligence ship, Kill 34 sailors on board, even open fire on an escape rafter and have the US brush it under the carpet.

thats how bad ass they are.

Nodin · 24-01-2011 08:06PM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

I certainly don't.

I've a problem with jihadists being allowed onboard who masqueraded as and hid behind genuine activists.

....a bit of a bold leap there.

Badgermonkey · 24-01-2011 08:32PM

Nodin wrote: »

....a bit of a bold leap there.

You could be right, the UN report should shed more light on that. I'll call them alleged jihadists.

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF and that vessel contained members of an organisation which has provided material support to Hamas, the IHH.

http://www.ihh.org.tr/

Lumen · 24-01-2011 10:17PM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF

Well, from the current UN report (linked above) force was used on multiple ships, and in general the force used seems related to the threat/resistance presented.

Armed resistance (sticks/stabbing weapons) -> shoot them with live bullets.
Passive resistance -> stun grenades, paintballs, plastic bullets, soft-baton charges, electroshock weapons etc.
No resistance -> board without incident.

The violence as reported seems massively disproportionate to the threat, and gratuitous. Even the supposedly non-lethal weapons were used in such a way as to be lethal. For instance:

"Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doğan received a bullet in the face and İbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull and entered his brain."

Lumen · 24-01-2011 10:22PM

Turkel Committee Report

Nodin · 24-01-2011 10:25PM

Badgermonkey wrote: »

You could be right, the UN report should shed more light on that. I'll call them alleged jihadists.

Only one of the six ships was attacked by the IDF and that vessel contained members of an organisation which has provided material support to Hamas, the IHH.

http://www.ihh.org.tr/

...who is it that alleges they support Hamas....?

Israeli military cleared over flotilla raid

Comments