Israeli Commando: 'We Had No Choice': (I beleive this guy more than anyone else)

It happened on international waters. It is bias to take which sides telling the truth.

However, the fact remain that
"if you invade my ship, I will shoot you in defense."
"I won't prepare a cup of coffee or tea to calm you down."

reply to post by muzzleflash

The video evidence does indeed show the other side of the story.

Forget what you see, and try to think what is being hidden from you.

The vids are heavily doctored and would be thrown out in a court of law.

It says something when South Africa recall their Diplomats

removed by pjotr

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Pjotr]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by DomhainGràdh
Question: How many of these threads are you going post bleating about poor Israel? Here with this blindingly obvious crock of sh...

You want us to believe the above? It's complete BS. Who are the mercenaries? They provide no evidence or names only accusations from the accused.

I am beginning to wonder if you are paid for defending these criminals, either that or you are fanatical maniac religiously defending murder.

Get a grip, what I am is anti BS and NOT anti semite. Fail.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by DomhainGràdh]

This "foaming at the mouth with hate" makes you look no better than the Israeli's you condemn.

Honestly. Evil begets evil.

If you guys had all the power in the world, nothing would change. You would merely flip Palestine and Israel's positions.

You would have no problem watching the other side suffer. This I can tell by your rhetoric's tone.

But if I had the power, I would solve this issue at it's roots. I would refrain from blaming either side or punishing them arbitrarily.

I would seek justice NOT vengeance. Revenge is what keeps this circle of hate going after all...

I am not and will NEVER be so vain, as to want all the power in the world.

I and many others are rightly angry at the over reaction and lies of Israel. Being a decent and caring human being I can feel for the victims of such.

Your accusations are baseless and my foaming at the mouth would be identical if it were a boat of Israelis and the murderers Palestinians.
Be careful when you attempt to slander and discredit people, I am not hiding my feelings and nor am I evil. You could be kind and define Evil for us as well.

Can we call you an apologist for murder? That would be your rhetoric.

I would however welcome a sensible and peaceful solution to this situation. Vengeance and retaliation is not the right way to resolve problems. That we can agree on.

Edit due to foaming mouth.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by DomhainGràdh]

reply to post by Pjotr


Please read the article, or the OP thread and then my replies thus far.

I think you will see you answers.

I think I have done plenty of researching. I'm waiting on you and others to give something to counter. Which, of course, does not exist-yet anyway.

Originally posted by anon72
Israeli Commando: 'We Had No Choice'

I don't know.

Shooting someone in the head four times not only seems like a choice, but also a bit of an overkill.

- Lee

Originally posted by brainwrek
Wow, that article contains all kinds of emotional buzz words....mercenaries, devastating, terrorists, and murderous rage.

In an article that short, the word mercenaries was used 9 times.

Who actually wrote that, a psyops unit, or the assaulter?>


Like every other crime Israel commits, they portray themselves as the victim and offer no evidence to back up their claims.

Lets see some proof people on that boat were actually "mercenaries".

I agree if they were a bunch of mercenaries they were piss poor excuse for them. When a group stage an assalt from a near fixed position or a chopper you have about 20 to 30 secs to engage them or if possible get a shot of the pilot or at least get some rounds into the cockpit.

Any terrorist worth his weight in sand will tell you always expect a chopper when you least expect it. Hence carry an RPG these thing's are relatively light and extremely effective at close range.

Given that terrorists are relatively capable with weapons and aiming that they didn't take this opportunity to "engage" the IDF with a surprise ambush is staggering the headlines for israel would have been humiliating "special forces killed in surprise raid" would have echoed throughout the arab world and made israel a laughing stock of the middle east.

The conclusion is simple but surprising the MAJORITY of the people on the ship did not have guns.

Notice the majority there? allow me to explain flare guns are still guns and Israel is aware of that.

However there is another possibility that however unlikely MUST be considered.

1. there were pistols on the ship? (we won't know until the report israel publishes is released and subject to scrutiny)

2. The whole thing was staged by MOSAD to create instability with Lebanon, Hamas, Syria, Iran & Hezbollah to give israel a reason to invade these countries and expand it's borders.

Thanks for reading

For Turkey, this was an attempt to assert influence in the region.

For many of those on the boats, this was an attempt to raise international awareness of the on-going blockade and the (percieved) plight of the Palestinians.

For Israel it was a shot in the foot. Though whether it was a lose - lose situation for Israel is a matter of opinion.


None of which changes my opinion that Israel were totally in the wrong.

Hahahaha, Turkey is calling this a 'massacre'.

Then I wonder what their Armenian genocide (which they are still denying by the way) should be called then...

It was (as stated by many) kill or be killed.
And those muslims had no intention of being Ghandi's here!

Don't ever let your guard down Israel. The whole Western world is backing you (behind the curtains, but still...)

[edit on 4/6/10 by Eyeris]

Originally posted by Essan
For Turkey, this was an attempt to assert influence in the region.

I think you are correct and I think that Israel knew this as well. Hence the whole refusal to dock at Port Ashdod bit. Using a humanitarian aid convoy as also a show of strength in a region is rather counterproductive to the original intent in my opinion.

For many of those on the boats, this was an attempt to raise international awareness of the on-going blockade and the (percieved) plight of the Palestinians.

True enough. I would also bet that a great number of humanitarian workers had no idea what was really transpiring or the fact that military might could possibly be an ulterior motive to the convoy.

For Israel it was a shot in the foot. Though whether it was a lose - lose situation for Israel is a matter of opinion.

They didn't have many options although I think the biggest mistake was boarding the ship in International waters. Had they waited until it arrived in Israeli waters, I think we would be looking at an entirely different situation.

Originally posted by Essan

None of which changes my opinion that Israel were totally in the wrong.

Would it help to know that the aid workers....or whatever they are...were not singing Kumbaya when the comandos landed?

And thats another thing.....who were all these people? How about just running a ships crew and a few people from the aid organization?

Aid workers with gas masks, flack jackets and crowbars.....yea right.

I think that both sides needs to take a step back, take a deep breath and then think before acting. That would be in the world and here on the ATS.
Based off of what I have heard and what has been shown and the facts that I can only state on is the following:
1) All 6 of the aid ships were in the wrong. I am not stating that Israel is right, but I think both jumped the gun. What I saw on the video that has come out from this incident, Israel is wrong for doing this 40 miles away from shore, and those on that ship were wrong for attacking the soldiers who repelled down from the helicopters. This was not the actions of peaceful intentions, but for those seeking confrontation.
2) According to what I have heard, it is not just Isreal that is blockading Gaza but Egypt as well. So part of the blame has to be on the Egyptian government for having such on the land side.
3) According to sources that I have heard and read about, the rules for delivering aid to Gaza is very clear, you dock at one port, allow for Isreal to inspect to ensure that no weapons are sent into Gaza and then the aid is sent in.
4) Those ships could have docked either at the port specified by Isreal, which is near Gaza, or in Egypt and the aid would have been shipped in.
Based off of that information and facts I can conclude that this was to provoke and get a response from Isreal, to try to get support around the world to seek to put pressure on Isreal.
For those who think we should go to war with Isreal over this one incident, the question is, on what grounds? Piracy? If that is the only reason, then the next question is why has the world not gone to war with Somolia? After all they have been doing this for years, by going out, attacking ships and taking hostages, in acts of Piracy, then to demand ransom for such. Isreal is not demaning ransom, in fact all they want to make sure is that weapons and rockets are not brought into Gaza to ensure the safety of their people and citizens.

Just to bring another point of view into this, if I may. Perhaps those who are critical of Israel's rights in international waters, may want to review the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 from the International Committee of the Red Cross while not a treaty is considered by the ICRC as the customary law. Source which states:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

This being said, Israel is in a state of war with Hamas and has found weapons stashed in previous humanitarian aid shipments to Gaza, hence the blockade to stop such weapons smuggling. This particular "aid" ship was given the opportunity to reroute to an alternate port for offloading of said humanitarian goods and they refused.

I am just in utter shock everytime I visit ATS lately and see the array of threads that clearly have one intention - Damage Control.

But, I seek solace in the fact that world is waking up to the murderous, corrupt, selfish, evil, tyrannical, ILLEGAL state that calls itself Israel.

As a British white women, I have no reason to side with Palestine, I have no ties, or family links, nothing.

Yet ten years of reading exactly how this biggest injustice in the world works, leaves me sick to my stomach to think that anyone has the nerve to support Israel and their actions.

Please, if you're reading this, do not be fooled or mislead by the countless threads here that are trying to distract you from what is really going on, which is of course, no less than one long crime against humanity. Nobody is free when others are oppressed.

Thankfully, with the internet and alternative media sites, people will begin to wake up, and Israel will no longer be able to hide behind their pathetic lies and white phosphorus bombs.

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
It happened on international waters. It is bias to take which sides telling the truth.

However, the fact remain that
"if you invade my ship, I will shoot you in defense."
"I won't prepare a cup of coffee or tea to calm you down."

Yet have any of you even tried to find out what is considered legal, or illegal according to international maritime law?...

I made a thread about this here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
...

www.redstate.com...


The law states that even in neutral/international waters neutral ships cannot commit belligerent acts, and if they make their intentions clear, even in neutral/international waters that they will breach a blockade, that is considered a belligerent act.

To me it always seems stupid to shoot and ask questions later. In war you see this all the time. As with the footage that we got from Wikileaks with the soldier in the helicopter just firing away at what they thought were people with AK's.

In relation to this case they could have either used non lethal force (by firing up into the air and pointing their guns at the people to force them to stop attacking) or tranq darts/beanbag shotguns to subdue the people who were violent on the boat. They had to have known they would encounter resistance of some kind. It seems like to me some of the soldiers were waiting for their chance to do something.. most likely a lone soldier started firing and it escalated into more firing as well.

For the most part there was peace in Palestine between the Jews and Muslims before Zionism took over in 1948 dubbing Palestine The State of Israel. Muslims weren't completely without fault but can you blame them? They had controlled the area for about 400 years. It was their "home" and now they were being forced to split it and they didn't want to. So now, quite a bit of what the State of Israel has done int he name of Judaism is sad. Even Rabbinic Jews will state as much. Could this conflict have been stopped if the Palestinians had of taken the peace treaty to split Palestine and have Jerusalem a neutral city? I don't know.. But I do know there will almost always be conflict in that area of the middle east now.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by willgrey7]

reply to post by Isis_Is_I


It is not damage control... it is seeking for the truth... The damage control is when people leave out facts and make generalizations which are not only wrong but show a bias towards one side...

It doesn't matter if you are a white woman, the fact that you did not even attempt to find the truth about what is considered a legal, or illegal act according to international maritime laws...you just accepted the claims from the Palestinian side, which makes you biased.

reply to post by Copperflower


That's the thing i've been wondering. If these so called protestors, mercenaries, whatever you want to call them were "peaceful" and were on a soley "humanitarian" mission then why did they react violently? I was under the impression that passiveness I.E. the methods used by Mohandas Ghandi, MLK and other freedom fighters/civil rights leaders favored pacifism so as to show the world the viciousness of their attackers.

I understand them desiring to defend themselves but they have completely sullied any notion that they were peaceful.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


See, there you go again. PLEASE explain to me, at which point in this situation was it acceptable to MURDER civilians?

The Flotilla was in International waters, Israel had no right to storm this ship, none at all.

Israel is a disgrace, it always has been. And the world is waking up to it.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

The video evidence does indeed show the other side of the story.

Forget what you see, and try to think what is being hidden from you.

The vids are heavily doctored and would be thrown out in a court of law.

It says something when South Africa recall their Diplomats

I'm sure many people would love for us to forget what we see.

Forget what you see people and just believe what we tell you. Those pesky videos can't be trusted, but we can be.