Subject: »Gaza sea convoy incident

it depends on how you define arms to determine whether it is unarmed or not. i consider taking up arms as armed, whether they are improvised or modern weaponry

and i'm pretty sure attempting to enter a country without permission is a crime

I am the actual person on the field who taught them a bit of what the know.

Somehow I doubt that. Ok answer a quick question: How many counts for one sweep of a GPMG? Even a recruit will be able to tell me that.

After that we will move on to more.

I don't think they used HMGs on the boat.
Anyone, of course the army is armoured, you wouldn't want to go near combat in a golf buggy (oh wait, our government does that already :P)

Nah, there's a difference between 'armed passengers' and 'armed ship'.

attempting to enter a country without permission is a crime

Well here lies the problem. If they had waited until the convoy had actually entered Israeli waters, there would have been some justification for repelling the ships. You cannot commit trespass without trespassing.

Also, the disproportionate use of force. Otherwise why not let Japan blow all anti-whaling protest ships up?

What ever you want mate! I hope you drown in that self pity!


(edited)

Heh if they had used HMGs then there would have been a lot more casualties, that's for sure :)

Still, there are far better crowd dispersal techniques than 'fire live ammunition at them!'.

why would the protestors be pissed off in the first place? because they refused a peaceful compromise where they can monitor the aid being sent into gaza, and instead forced israel's hands in order to make some sensasionalist headlines?

and the israeli forces did not reasonably expect the activists to lynch them. if they did, you'd think they'd go in with rubber bullet shotguns, riot gear, tear gas launchers, water cannons and whatnot, don't you think? they had no problems with the rest of the ships, why would they expect problems with this one? if they were as brutal and ruthless as you put them up to be, they'd just sink the freaking ships with missiles from the chopper, minigun the activists, or drop a flashbang, rappel down with assault rifles and mow everyone down.

now don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to justify their actions, nor am i saying it's right. loss of lives are always regrettable, and perhaps this could have been done in a better way, but this sort of obstinacy and bigotry is silly to say the least, at least be a bit more open-minded about it and wait for more information before making blatant accusations

probably is, problem is, don't think they were expecting crowd trouble, especially on that scale, judging from the responses from the rest of the ships
(edited)

I would ask you to please stop referring to our media sources as skewed, biased or badly informed, thank you very much. You're under control of the media of a country that has been in mental state of a war for most years of its existence. You can't say your media is a valid source of 'information'.

It's wideliy known (from belgian/dutch sources) that most israeli have no clue what the land on the other side of the wall looks like. So I am going to describe it like it is. And it looks pretty much like you can expect from a war zone that was bombed one year and a half ago and no building materials have been let in (guess by who). I understand though, the building materials can be used by terrorists to do terroristic things with it. You have to stop evil at its roots. By letting a million people live in conditions that are only good for animals. Please don't expect anybody to say this in nicer terms under the excuse op 'unbiased information', because sometimes there is no middle ground in describing a situation that makes both parties look like reasonable human beings. Peace.

Second, some of you seem to ride on two horses: one is that terrorists have to be stopped and all means are justified. The second horse is that all that is acquires through use of force is justified. It's one or the other, my good friends. And this is not just some anti-zionistic anti-semitic logic I'm using.
The bad thing about terrorists is that they use the law of the strongest to get what they want. If you want us to feel sympathy for your cause, it is throught the fact that they threathen your way of living with violence. But if you then go around justifying what you've done and that what you've 'conquered' is rightfully yours , by saying that it is always is the law of the strongest, you really can't blame the terrorists anymore, for trying the same. Yay for the terrorists, then. And futher, if you try and base your law of military might with historical precedents, I know of plenty of 'historical precedents' that you probably won't want to be reminded of. Were they then justified as well? You have to agree they were.

You are a child that played too many computer games.
I think it's Ctrl+L to reload... lol...

This is getting better by the second :)

But I understand you are simply ignorant so here is some info:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10A371C99E46C534&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://singapore.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.asp?SubjectID=2010&MissionID=58&LanguageID=0&StatusID=0&DocumentID=-1
http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-6321.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/defense-min-in-singapore-set-to-publicly-attend-weapons-expo-1.239635

;-)

and the israeli forces did not reasonably expect the activists to lynch them. if they did, you'd think they'd go in with rubber bullet shotguns, riot gear, tear gas launchers, water cannons and whatnot, don't you think? they had no problems with the rest of the ships, why would they expect problems with this one? if they were as brutal and ruthless as you put them up to be, they'd just sink the freaking ships with missiles from the chopper, minigun the activists, or drop a flashbang, rappel down with assault rifles and mow everyone down.

now don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to justify their actions, nor am i saying it's right. loss of lives are always regrettable, and perhaps this could have been done in a better way, but this sort of obstinacy and bigotry is silly to say the least, at least be a bit more open-minded about it and wait for more information before making blatant accusations

probably they were expecting some kind of action, yes. This was one the first things that popped into my mind. The IDF isn't going to sweep the deck with HMG just out spite. There must have been some provocation. (and still, their response is out of proportion, of course) But seeing as how any nuance has left this discussion, admitting this would immediatly justify any action the israeli's took. Self-defence is the name of the game. A game with no rules.

Now I know for sure that you are severely lacking in any military experience, perhaps you haven't even been to your own national service. When you grow up we will talk again.

By the way, articles 1 and 2 quoted are about cultural relations, article 3 is about Israeli instructors in 1965, and article 4 is about officials attending a weapons expo.

---

Well done mods changing the name of this topic!! Gaza sea convoy incident ... let's call an illegal attack and murder by Israel an incident :S What are you guys doing, trying to copy the zionist newschannels and make it less important by name????



(edited)

ne deyirsen eee