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

[cesare]

Yes, I have.

You have not addressed the issue of physical reaction.

 

[Spion]

Those on board the Mavi Marmara appear to have already successfully resisted the IDF boarding party before they tried landing on the top deck

 

[Spymaster]

I suggest you have absolutely no understanding of the NVDA protests which occur daily in Israel-Palestine in a co-operation between Israeli Jews, Palestinian Christians and Muslims and internationals.

I suggest you have no understanding of what they protest against and what it means to continue NVDA in the face of 'stun grenades, tear gas and live ammunition' and why these NVDA protestors are killed, maimed routinely as part of Israeli Defence action, instead of 'surrendering' as you suggest.

You're right. I know little of the above.

What I do know is that fighting armed commandos on a boat (thus precluding the 'flight' option) with sticks and spoons is probably the most fucking stupid course of action available.

 

[dylans]

This entire discussion is a distraction.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've done lots of NVDA training. But from people I've talked to, nothing prepares you for being caught in a battle zone. The whole point of the stun grenades, flashes and smoke is to disorientate and confuse. How do you suggest that be prepared for except by doing it? Are states likely to let their citizens use those weapons to simulate attack? I bet the military does.

Of course it does.
IDF uses an Israel-produced version of the US M84 stun grenade which, although "non-lethal", does indeed disorient, partially through overwhelming the balance mechanism that resides in the inner ear. Not an appropriate device to use on a crowded ship, IMHO.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're right. I know little of the above.

What I do know is that fighting armed commandos on a boat (thus precluding the 'flight' option) with sticks and spoons is probably the most fucking stupid course of action available.

if you're on a ship in the middle of the mediterranean, i would submit the flight 'option' is already precluded.

 

[Spymaster]

i could say he's a smug, self-satisfied wanker, but i thought you could add the adjectives.

Oh well. If we've reached that point I shall bid you farewell.

 

[Pickman's model]

if i'd known it would be that easy, i'd have done it dome time ago.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He totally ignored this, when I was putting that to him last night.

I noticed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

More like "lie down and surrender just in case one of them blows your fucking head off".

And if they choose to do that anyway?

Shot is shot, afaic. If surrender lessens the chances of being shot, do it.

Given that there was no way for the resisters to know whether that was indeed the case, then there wasn't much of a motive to, was there?

 

[Spymaster]

You have not addressed the issue of physical reaction.

Yes I have.

Until further information is available to the contray I believe that there is a case to criticise the defence action as unhelpful, and that it's possible that the situation was further inflamed intentionally by some of those aboard, a la Black Bloc.

 

[Spion]

Until further information is available to the contray I believe that there is a case to criticise the defence action as unhelpful, and that it's possible that the situation was further inflamed intentionally by some of those aboard, a la Black Bloc.

Here we have the very definition of prejudice

 

[ViolentPanda]

..... surrender is the most appropriate action!

In the face of a reflexive response to being assaulted, resistance is the most likely outcome. The commander of the assault operation would have known this and should have planned accordingly if he wished to minimise harm to both sides. That he didn't is significant.

 

[Fedayn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spymaster
Again with a misinterpretaion of what I've actually posted.

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

At all times? In all circumstances? No matter what the consequences of not reisisting are?

 

[Spymaster]

And if they choose to do that anyway?

At least you tried.

Attacking an armed Israeli commando with a stick is far more likely to result in death or serious injury than attempting to surrender, imo.

Given that there was no way for the resisters to know whether that was indeed the case, then there wasn't much of a motive to, was there?

Given that attacking armed Israeli commandos with sticks is virtually certain to end in death or paraplegia for you and others around you, I'd say that there was every motive.

 

[cesare]

In the face of a reflexive response to being assaulted, resistance is the most likely outcome. The commander of the assault operation would have known this and should have planned accordingly if he wished to minimise harm to both sides. That he didn't is significant.

Where's that brick wall smiley?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You have not addressed the issue of physical reaction.

Thing is, if you're an officer with a passing familiarity with "policing actions" (as the IDF are), then you'll deliberately (unless, of course, your desire is to provoke an aggressive reaction) "manage" the situation to avoid provoking that physical reaction, and you'll use troops hardened to such actions who won't have the same "fight or flight" reaction burning through them. This didn't happen, so provocation through attempting to manipulate that "physical reaction" becomes a distinct possibility, IMO.

 

[cesare]

Thing is, if you're an officer with a passing familiarity with "policing actions" (as the IDF are), then you'll deliberately (unless, of course, your desire is to provoke an aggressive reaction) "manage" the situation to avoid provoking that physical reaction, and you'll use troops hardened to such actions who won't have the same "fight or flight" reaction burning through them. This didn't happen, so provocation through attempting to manipulate that "physical reaction" becomes a distinct possibility, IMO.

As was the initial use of paintball guns.

 

[ViolentPanda]

At least you tried.

Attacking an armed Israeli commando with a stick is far more likely to result in death or serious injury than attempting to surrender, imo.



Given that attacking armed Israeli commandos with sticks is virtually certain to end in death or paraplegia for you and others around you, I'd say that there was every motive.

Thanks for letting me know how little you know of close-quarters engagement.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes I have.

Until further information is available to the contray I believe that there is a case to criticise the defence action as unhelpful, and that it's possible that the situation was further inflamed intentionally by some of those aboard, a la Black Bloc.

= it was their fault. Not the IDF's.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And if they choose to do that anyway?



Given that there was no way for the resisters to know whether that was indeed the case, then there wasn't much of a motive to, was there?

That relates to another key issue about all this. We still have only very patchy accounts from the surviving passengers due to the Israelis still holding most of them incommunicado, but several of them claim that the Israelis were shooting before they tried to land commandos on board the ship.

The IDF account which dominates the media right now may not truthfully describe what preceded the fight in the image-enhanced footage from the IDF. As a result, discussions about the resistance of the passengers may be framed in deliberately misleading terms due to the IDF's account being virtually unchallenged.

 

[Mooncat]

 

[Spymaster]

At all times? In all circumstances? No matter what the consequences of not reisisting are?

Depends. The consequences of not resisting on the boat was likely to be deportation. Those who chose not to resist presumably knew this. The consequences of not resisting the holocaust was almost certain death for you and your people.

 

[tarannau]

I love the fact that Spy is trying to judge people based on his own cowardly, uninformed position.

Frankly you have no idea what you would have done in the heat and confusion. It's not a set of rational decisions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As was the initial use of paintball guns.

A paintball gun,

A sub-machine gun.

 

[Diamond]

 

[Random]

Until further information is available to the contray I believe that there is a case to criticise the defence action as unhelpful, and that it's possible that the situation was further inflamed intentionally by some of those aboard, a la Black Bloc.

'Intentionally', or 'stupidly'? You're all over on this. Either you're hiding some other motive, or you really don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, the issue now, and where our energies might want to be focused is on a) ending the blockade, b) an independent inquiry into the assault on the aid convoy.

Clegg is an obvious lever point in the UK government, given his stated beliefs before coming into government. We should remind him and his party that they used to believe that words hedged with conditions weren't enough, and that action by the UK government to end the blockade was necessary.

They may turn out to have no shame, but that isn't a reason for us to sit back.

 

[cesare]

A paintball gun,

A sub-machine gun.

Another paintball gun

 

[Random]

Anyway, the issue now, and where our energies might want to be focused is on a) ending the blockade, b) an independent inquiry into the assault on the aid convoy.

Clegg is an obvious lever point in the UK government, given his stated beliefs before coming into government. We should remind him and his party that they used to believe that words hedged with conditions weren't enough, and that action by the UK government to end the blockade was necessary.

They may turn out to have no shame, but that isn't a reason for us to sit back.

I'd say a more useful aim would be making the next wave of blockade-busting ships even bigger and better.