Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[Random]

Ok. I believe that had the vigorous defence not taken place, there is an extremely high likelihood that lives would have been saved.

Anyone accepting the above can not conclude logically that the defence was reasonable.

What if, due to the international furore, thousands of lives in Gaza are saved?

 

[Spymaster]

It's a pity or the case that you're trying to make that neither the footage or reportage shows a demand for surrender, or that those aid workers who weren't resisting were treated as if they'd surrendered. As far as I can make out, they were still beaten.

As far as you can make out from wholly biased reporting.

Look, you want to believe that the Israelis went aboard shooting wildly, holding cutlasses in their teeth, so you base your argument on the assumption that that's what they did, whilst refusing to accept the possibility that mistakes were made by the protetors too.

<shrugs>

 

[Spymaster]

Again with the implication that resistance should end at the first possibility of harm.

Again with a misinterpretaion of what I've actually posted.

Resistance should end when it's likely to cause more harm than good.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you open fire onto the deck of a ship where you know people are sleeping in sleeping bags at 4am in the morning, then it can only be assumed that the IDF had no care for any injuries or fatalities that might be caused to those vulnerable people on the deck as a result of their gunfire.

Or, as I suggested earlier, that care didn't come into it, and that an effect was being sought as part of a pre-determined scenario.

 

[tangentlama]

Those sound like stun grenades. They emit a loud noise and flash of light which temporarily blinds and deafens, and can also burn your skin. Some people have been killed by direct impact of stun grenade.

Israeli Stun Grenade Burns Palestinian Children

Saturday, 17 March 2001 14:21 RamallahOnline RamallahOnline Archive - Historical Data

JERUSALEM, Friday (Reuters)
Six Palestinian children suffered burns on Thursday when Israeli soldiers threw a stun grenade into a West Bank schoolyard in new violence after Israel pledged to ease its blockade on Palestinians.

A Palestinian official said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's charges that the Palestinian Authority was igniting violence were a cover for a plan to seize back some of the lands ceded to the Palestinians.

Doctors in the divided city of Hebron said three of the six children were burned on the head, hands and back and the other three were suffering from minor blisters and shock. The Israeli army said soldiers had launched the grenade at the school fence in the direction of children who were throwing stones at passing Israeli vehicles.

"Five children suffered light impact injuries from the grenade," the army said in a written statement.

"The army sees the removal of children from the circle of violence as highly important, but...will continue to act against anyone trying to compromise the security of Israeli citizens," the statement said.

Removal from the circle of violence by responding with violence? Or a response which perpetuates a circle of violence?

 

[Blagsta]

But you've asserted that you believe the soldiers shot surrendering civilians. That'd be a psychotic act wouldn't it?



I've read and observed all links and everything posted since page 40, and anything referred to me by others prior to that.

Are you saying there's something I've missed? If so show me where and I'll take a look.

No. You might want to look up what the word means. You've already admitted not knowing what "self defence" means.

 

[Random]

Resistance should end when it's likely to cause more harm than good.

What if, due to the international furore, thousands of lives in Gaza are saved?

 

[Blagsta]

Of course you have. What you've missed is that it wasn't a choice between the two. The protestors should have laid down their spanners the second the troops left the helicopters.

Again, why compound a shitty, immoral, illegal act, with a stupid one?



No problem.

Of course, you know better, not having been there don't you. You know far better than the people who were actually there.

 

[YouSir]

As far as you can make out from wholly biased reporting.

Look, you want to believe that the Israelis went aboard shooting wildly, holding cutlasses in their teeth, so you base your argument on the assumption that that's what they did, whilst refusing to accept the possibility that mistakes were made by the protetors too.

<shrugs>

The activists mistakes are understandable ones given the situation, even if you can't comprehend the idea of defending yourself there are plenty who think it's a perfectly valid reaction. Even if there were contingency plans for a boarding (and I suspect there probably were) they were invalidated the second the IDF took the initial aggressive action (which they seem to have done). The IDF on the other hand planned their actions long before they went in, they committed what was an apparently illegal act, showed little concern for the lives of those on board the ship and generally chose to create this situation. Throw in their track record and you'd either be biased as hell or just plain stupid to offer them the benefit of the doubt (which I know Spymaster hasn't done).

I know this has probably been said over and over again on this thread already, but it's a truly cynical, even spiteful, move to try and balance out blame as if all involved were culpable and should hold their hands up. One side planned and caused this, the other, for all its faults, did not.

And if anyone's still suggesting that this was a concerted, planned effort from a portion of the activists to start a ruck then, well, that one doesn't really need elaborating on because it's just a stupid suggestion.

 

[Spymaster]

You've already admitted not knowing what "self defence" means.

Don't be silly. I've admitted to misusing the term 'self-defence' insofar as in this case, 'self-defence' should mean 'no-defence'.

What if, due to the international furore, thousands of lives in Gaza are saved?

A far more difficult question and one worthy of a thread itself:

"Is Dying For A Cause Sensible?"

What if some of those that die don't subscribe to the methods that got them killed?

Are you suggesting that the protestors involved deliberately engineered a bloodbath to cause an "international furore"? Because if they did, yes, I condemn that action regardless of its perceived wider benefits.

 

[Random]

What if some of those that die don't subscribe to the methods that got them killed?

It doesn't matter, does it? Not if we're just evaluating the actions as to whether they'll cause more harm or good.

 

[tangentlama]

It's clear. The Israeli blockade on Gazan peoples must end.

Turkey have promised to normalise relations with Israel if Israel ends its blockade.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As far as you can make out from wholly biased reporting.

As far as I can make out from looking at as many sources as I can, including what is coming out of Israel.

Look, you want to believe that the Israelis went aboard shooting wildly, holding cutlasses in their teeth, so you base your argument on the assumption that that's what they did, whilst refusing to accept the possibility that mistakes were made by the protetors too.

<shrugs>

I don't "want" to believe anything (although I suppose your assumption that I do serves your own argument well enough). I'm familiar enough with helicopters, guns and military tactics and strategy that I see:
1) a hole in the story vis a vis the abseilers themselves. Why did the IDF deem them necessary? Any commander who'd ever abseiled would know that dropping onto a moving platform is a recipe for disaster. Did "show-boating" and the need to capture something memorable for the TV to show Israel's citizens how the state wouldn't take no shit come into play? I suspect it did.

2) Shots were fired before the deck of the Marmara Mavi were abseiled onto, so whether I choose to "believe" that the commandos "went in shooting" is immaterial to actual fact.

3) In your opinion, the aid workers made the "mistake" of resisting. Given the situation they were submitted to, where they couldn't be sure that they weren't going to all end up doing a Maxwell in the Med, their resistance wasn't a mistake. It was appropriate, it was lawful and it was most of all sensible when faced with an opponent whose actions were illegal.

 

[Maidmarian]

It's clear. The Israeli blockade on Gazan peoples must end.

Turkey have promised to normalise relations with Israel if Israel ends its blockade.

Which, I'll bet, the Israelis spin as "holding Israel to ransom"

 

[Spymaster]

Of course, you know better, not having been there don't you. You know far better than the people who were actually there.

Well it seems so doesn't it? since I know that fighting armed commandos with cutlery is futile.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Again with a misinterpretaion of what I've actually posted.

Resistance should end when it's likely to cause more harm than good.

Measured against what, you great steaming twit?
According to you, measured against The Cowardly Lion's Spymaster's resistance gauge.

 

[Maidmarian]

Well it seems so doesn't it? since I know that fighting armed commandos with cutlery is futile.

Depends, if you are convinced that you are in mortal danger, I guess you'd grab anything you could to defend yourself with.

 

[Spymaster]

1) a hole in the story vis a vis the abseilers themselves. Why did the IDF deem them necessary? Any commander who'd ever abseiled would know that dropping onto a moving platform is a recipe for disaster. Did "show-boating" and the need to capture something memorable for the TV to show Israel's citizens how the state wouldn't take no shit come into play? I suspect it did.

I agree. Furthermore if the soldiers are possibly under orders to "take no shit", don't give them any.

2) Shots were fired before the deck of the Marmara Mavi were abseiled onto ....

All the more reason to curl up in a corner somewhere and hide if you're unarmed.

3) In your opinion, the aid workers made the "mistake" of resisting. Given the situation they were submitted to, where they couldn't be sure that they weren't going to all end up doing a Maxwell in the Med, their resistance wasn't a mistake.

I don't accept that all of the protestors believed that they would be killed if they didn't resist.

It was appropriate, it was lawful and it was most of all sensible when faced with an opponent whose actions were illegal

It was lawfully inappropriate and fucking stupid given that they faced guns and had sticks.

 

[rioted]

I don't accept that all of the protestors believed that they would be killed if they didn't resist.

Who is suggesting "all of the protestors"? Keep muddying the water.

 

[Spymaster]

Measured against what, you great steaming twit?

Measured against the possibility of that resistance being successful. You bellend.

If a possibility of resisting is that all the soldiers fuck off and send you on your way then great, go for it. But if the only possibilty of resisting is a bunch of dead comrades. Don't.

Simple.

 

[Random]

Measured against the possibility of that resistance being successful. You bellend.

If a possibility of resisting is that all the soldiers fuck off and send you on your way then great, go for it. But if the only possibilty of resisting is a bunch of dead comrades. Don't.

Simple.

So you think this was a martyrdom operation, then?

 

[Spymaster]

Who is suggesting "all of the protestors"? Keep muddying the water.

That all you've got?

I'll change it for your sake.

I don't accept that the protestors involved in the resistance on the ship were all in fear for their lives.

 

[tangentlama]

Measured against the possibility of that resistance being successful. You bellend.

If a possibility of resisting is that all the soldiers fuck off and send you on your way then great, go for it. But if the only possibilty of resisting is a bunch of dead comrades. Don't.

Simple.

Again, you assume that there were no dead or dying comrades prior to attempts to wrest the firearms from the descending Israeli commandos, which may have occurred as a direct result of the stun grenades and open gunfire directed at the deck of the ship prior to any attempts to board the ship.

Most of your premises are built on assumptions which bear no relation to the actual order of events.

 

[Maidmarian]

That all you've got?

I'll change it for your sake.

I don't accept that the protestors involved in the resistance on the ship were all in fear for their lives.

Really ? Why not ?

 

[Spymaster]

So you think this was a martyrdon operation, then?

No. I think it was a stupid, futile action that compounded an already deadly situation.

 

[rioted]

That all you've got?

I'll change it for your sake.

I don't accept that the protestors involved in the resistance on the ship were all in fear for their lives.

But if you can tell how murderous the IDF is, why couldn't they? Are you saying they wanted to die? Go on, blame the victims, you know you want to.

 

[tangentlama]

We know the Israelis threw stun grenades, tear gas and used tasers onto the deck in preparation for their aerial boarding attempts.

Radio4 now.

 

[Spymaster]

Really ? Why not ?

Mainly because they planned a defence for being boarded days before it happened, and if they thought they were going to die they wouldn't have been on the ship. Also because I believe that a sensible reaction to being shot at when unarmed is to capitulate, not to fight with sticks.

 

[Maidmarian]

Mainly because they planned a defence for being boarded days before it happened. Also because I believe that a natural reaction to being shot at when unarmed is to capitulate, not to fight with sticks.

No , "flight or fight" I believe is the "natural reaction".

 

[Random]

Also because I believe that a natural reaction to being shot at when unarmed is to capitulate, not to fight with sticks.

I think you're projecting your own preference there. And so what caused people to behave in such an 'unnatural' way? Sheer stupidity? Turkishness?