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

reply to post by harrytuttle


I guess you was there and saw the whole thing.

I mean thats the only way you can really be sure the events didn't play out like this soldier said it did.

After watching the video of them getting the crapped kicked out of them I really can't doubt what he said.

But I'm just trying to spread the propaganda.

reply to post by Miracle Man


they buttered it up, then why should we beleive him?

hence why i said it looks scripted.

I still don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, but this could of been avoided if Israel didn't board the ship.

this is not the first time.

look at my signature... USS Liberty.

[edit on 6/4/2010 by ugie1028]

reply to post by jibeho

"But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal."

LOL - Yeah, the CFR isn't biased at all.

You better catch up on who the basic players of global domination are. Consider yourself informed.

reply to post by ugie1028


"They" didn't butter anything up.

I said he dumbed it down.

Before talking to the press soldiers are told to simplify words so as the civilian population can understand what they are talking about.

Most civilians would be completely lost if they read a debrief memo. They would be left scratching their heads wondering what the hell they just read.

reply to post by Miracle Man


same thing. If your going to change it at all, keep it accurate... don't use keywords to sell you story.

the article is hogwash now because the way they structured. anyone with a half a brain can see the propaganda stemming from that.

reply to post by Essan


You are all of the above... Stop skewing the facts!
Blockade = LEGAL
Boarding the vessel in international waters to enforce the blockade =LEGAL

Now just because you dont think it was right.. DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Stop spreading your opinion like it is fact or law.. You are wrong and so is your opinion. but I can admit that is just my opinion.

The fact remains no law was broken.. Below is my proof.. Where is yours?
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.


For those that think this was piracy:


the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.


Some more raw facts on the matter. Blame the captain of any ship that chooses to violate a blockade for any repercussions that follow.


* A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

* Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

* A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

* The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

* In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

* Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

* Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

* A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.



Now post some facts or stop spreading your foolish opinion please.

Wow, Hitler's Germany seems to have been resurrected (or just come out of hiding)

The weapons yielding, hamas terrorist funded, "peace" activists should have been torpedoed prior to even getting close to Gaza. Most of you armchair quarterbacks probably have never thought about how the Palestinians have been obtaining the thousands of rockets they have been firing into Israel since the land for peace deal. Nor do you realize that these peace activists wouldn't think twice about sawing your spoiled head off of your overfed western bodies. I don't think you'll enjoy whats coming next... I don't want to spoil the surprise for you so what ever you do, DO NOT read from the book of Ezekiel which is in the Bible. (not that I have to warn most of you anti-semites to not read a Bible, beings you probably don't own one)

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

I guess you was there and saw the whole thing.

I mean thats the only way you can really be sure the events didn't play out like this soldier said it did.

After watching the video of them getting the crapped kicked out of them I really can't doubt what he said.

But I'm just trying to spread the propaganda.

You don't need to have been there to identify that OP article as propaganda. You only need to know the facts that the aid ship did not contain terrorists (as the soldier claims), and that the IDF had no legal authority to have boarded the ship in international waters.

The people aboard that ship were completely justified in defending themselves, and if those IDF mercenaries (they were the ones with the guns, remember?) weren't attacking the ship, they wouldn't have been beat down by innocent people defending themselves and their sovereign property of the vessel.

That's how I know, and why you should too.

Let's reverse it. Say you opposed the US Navy in international waters, and decided to announce to the US Naval vessel you were going to board their vessel and take control of the bridge. Do you feel the US Navy would have the right to defend against your actions?

[edit on 4-6-2010 by harrytuttle]

reply to post by ugie1028


Its the same thing only because you want it to be.

He used terms the public can understand and lost most of the military jargon and you assumed it was scripted.

As a soldier who has talked to the media I am telling you that is how we are instructed to talk to them. Its like a child asking why the sky is blue. You can give them the scientific reason, using all scientific words and leave the kid scratching his head more confused then before or you can dumb it down so he can understand.

Same logic applies here.

reply to post by harrytuttle


The article was about the soldier telling what he saw. Not whether they were justified in defending themselves or not.

The soldier gave an account of what happened through his eyes.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by jibeho

"But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal."

 

LOL - Yeah, the CFR isn't biased at all.

You better catch up on who the basic players of global domination are. Consider yourself informed.

Is that all you got from that article?

Not surprised. You may just want to clean off the rose colored glasses a little more often.

The blockade is LEGAL!! and has been in place since 2007.

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

The article was about the soldier telling what he saw. Not whether they were justified in defending themselves or not.

The soldier gave an account of what happened through his eyes.

And his eyes are of an Israeli agent, and as such his "words" must be approved by the State of Israel before press release.

He calls these innocent victims "terrorists", "mercenaries", "attackers", etc. In framing the innocent victims in those ways, you'd have to be thick in the skull to believe he isn't positioning himself as "justified" and the victims as "unjustified".

When was the last time you ever heard someone legitimately accuse a terrorist as "justified".

Spin it how you want, but I see the real picture.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by harrytuttle]

reply to post by BingeBob

HAHAHA A declaration of war??? Against whom? Who owned the ship? you cant declare war against people...Only countries...

Wow dude, here is an equation for you.....Turkish ship in international waters = Turkish territory.

Apparently you cant float a boat through a blockade set up by a world power without being boarded and searched...

Because Israel is not occupying Gaza, they cannot have a blockade. Have a look at what the UN says about it.

What would have happened if the flotilla was boarded by a small contingent of Israeli soldiers, the people on the boat were nice and the soldiers searched the cargo? If the boat had food and water on it and no ROCKETS...they may have been allowed to pass

The boat/cargo and passengers were already screened in port by authorities, and No evidence has been found to discredit this.

And if the Israeli navy had asked nicely to board the boat for a quick inspection maybe they would have got their cup of tea. However they chose to ATTACK, rappelling down ropes onto the deck amongst flashbangs and such, as well as boarding the boat from armed speedboats. This was a typical STORMING used by all special forces...although this time used against civilians.

Now you and your mates can try and spin it as much as you like, But it doesn't wash any more. The whole world are condemning the actions of Israel....And that makes you lot wrong.

reply to post by harrytuttle


I'm glad you see the big picture.

Have a good life.

reply to post by Isis_Is_I


The guy was telling you they did have a right to board the ship in international waters due to the fact that the ship was trying to run a blockade

reply to post by Miracle Man

Thank you for indirectly acknowledging my points were correct. Hopefully you've learned something about propaganda today.

reply to post by harrytuttle


No, I learned a long time ago to make your points and back off when talking to someone who has their mind made up about something.

I made my points and now I'm done with you.

GENEVA — United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.

Oh look i'm not dreaming

reply to post by Miracle Man
I'm reading the subtext of your post, and I'm detecting a hint of aggression. Don't loose face. If you can't handle the heat of the forum and thoughts that challenge your world view, then maybe the intertubes isn't the best place for you to spend your free time.

Just a suggestion.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by harrytuttle]

reply to post by harrytuttle


No, I learned a long time ago to make your points and back off when talking to someone who has their mind made up about something.

I made my points and now I'm done with you.