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

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

To answer your third question: because Israel will not allow what the aid workers were trying to take to Gaza; such dangerous things as cement and educational supplies.

Are you speaking of the cement that, along with construction materials have been used in the past to build tunnels to smuggle arms into Gaza?

reply to post by Skellon


Are you honestly comparing the lethality of military weaponry with a slingshot? Simply because a thing can be lethal in the right hands does not mean it's efficacy approaches that of a firearm in trained hands. If that were true, Americans wouldn't worry about second amendment rights - they'd be happy with their slingshots, baseball bats, and dinner forks.

reply to post by JohnnyElohim

The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad," former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that "we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us."

news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by Skellon

 

Are you honestly comparing the lethality of military weaponry with a slingshot? Simply because a thing can be lethal in the right hands does not mean it's efficacy approaches that of a firearm in trained hands. If that were true, Americans wouldn't worry about second amendment rights - they'd be happy with their slingshots, baseball bats, and dinner forks.

So if you just got off a fast rope and you get hit with several of those high powered sling shots, get beaten repeatedly with iron bars and get stabbed with a knife, you would be all fine because you have a firearm?





[edit on 4-6-2010 by Skellon]

reply to post by anon72


Poor jackbooted thug....maybe he outta find a new job that does not involve enforcing Zionist agendas. I have no sympathy what-so-ever and I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how Israel is the victim. Peace and equality is only important when it's convenient to them.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by UndergroundMilitia]

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


The Israeli's had paint guns. They were assaulted with sticks, metal pipes, and knives.

They did have sidearms, but not their automatic weapons. They only used their sidearms in self defense after they got pulled off the rope and beaten. They came on to the ship armed with paint guns in their hands, not their side arms.

reply to post by guavas


You made the point of light weapons on the people on the ship. Please ready the OP and/or article again. They reportedly did have guns but tossed them overboard at the end of the event.

I am beginning to wonder if any of the Anti-Isreal people here have looked at the videos that were identified in the OP and my second reply. I think if you had, you wouldn't be making the statements you are.

Originally posted by Skellon

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by Skellon

 

Are you honestly comparing the lethality of military weaponry with a slingshot? Simply because a thing can be lethal in the right hands does not mean it's efficacy approaches that of a firearm in trained hands. If that were true, Americans wouldn't worry about second amendment rights - they'd be happy with their slingshots, baseball bats, and dinner forks.

So if you just got off a fast rope and you get hit with several of those high powered sling shots, get beaten repeatedly with iron bars and get stabbed with a knife, you would be all fine because you have a firearm?





[edit on 4-6-2010 by Skellon]

What's that got to do with it? It's about the notion of restraint and judgement of proportionate force, not how highly trained commandos feel. Further, and more to the point, when you fast rope on to a ship in international waters with lethal weaponry, why exactly would you anticipate hospitality? Some reports suggest the captain of the ship in question was grievously wounded by remote gunfire before the boarding party undertook this exercise. If that turns out to be true it would push the expectation of a hospitable greeting beyond "questionable reasoning" and well into the realm of "crazy talk".

These pro-Israeli guys are total shills. Getting paid for it. Lol.

Those soldiers attempted to board ships in international waters. End of story. Period.

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad," former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that "we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us."

news.yahoo.com...

That does not mean that they are Hamas. It means they are sympathetic to them. The difference is quite significant. Why gloss over it?

Look at it this way: you are sympathetic to Israel and the IDF, thus you give them the benefit of the doubt in these considerations. Still, when you hear about their military doing wrong, I've no doubt you would deign to avoid doing the same. These people can be sympathetic to militant Palestinians (such as certain members of Hamas) without endorsing and practicing the same tactics, particularly when they are egregiously amoral.

liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com...

Gaza Flotilla Group Part of U.N. NGO Branch
June 4, 2010 - 11:29 AM | by: Ben Evansky

Earlier this week Fox News reported that the IHH has links to terrorist groups including Hamas and Al Qaeda. Indeed, the IHH was described in federal court documents as playing a role in the Millennium terrorist plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport.

The Turkish charity was described in a recent report as being a "radical Islamic organization with an anti-Western orientation," and that "besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and that at least in the past, even global jihad networks." (See full report below)

(snip)

While the IHH denies it supports terrorism, one of its members, Oguzan Ulas, told Fox News that Israel is trying to smear the organization. He did however say that the IHH does support Hamas and said that his organization disagreed with Hamas being designated a terrorist group by the U.S.

(emphasis mine)

(snip)

Yet this is not the first time the U.N's NGO system has accepted groups with terrorist links. In 2006 and 2007, Fox News exposed a Saudi-based charity called the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which, despite having two of its branches in the Philippines and Indonesia on the U.S. and U.N. terror list for aiding Al Qaeda, still enjoys full NGO status. Despite calls from members of Congress to expel them, the U.N. remains silent.

Yes, peaceful activists. NO links to terrorism here. Nope, Nuh uh.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

The Israeli's had paint guns. They were assaulted with sticks, metal pipes, and knives.

They did have sidearms, but not their automatic weapons. They only used their sidearms in self defense after they got pulled off the rope and beaten. They came on to the ship armed with paint guns in their hands, not their side arms.

That's rather naive and I mean no insult by that. A ship at sea is in a sense a mobile residence. People live there. In this case, they are civilians. This is not a gunboat. They do not have rifles on board. They are (so far as we can confirm) not trained for armed conflict. Their home is invaded because they are practicing resistance and protest. According to several versions of the story, they believe they are fighting for their lives. We're sympathetic when Israeli commandos have a survival instinct but not when protestors do?

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


See the post immediately above this one.

They were far from innocent civilians.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

The Israeli's had paint guns. They were assaulted with sticks, metal pipes, and knives.

They did have sidearms, but not their automatic weapons. They only used their sidearms in self defense after they got pulled off the rope and beaten. They came on to the ship armed with paint guns in their hands, not their side arms.

That's rather naive and I mean no insult by that. A ship at sea is in a sense a mobile residence. People live there. In this case, they are civilians. This is not a gunboat. They do not have rifles on board. They are (so far as we can confirm) not trained for armed conflict. Their home is invaded because they are practicing resistance and protest. According to several versions of the story, they believe they are fighting for their lives. We're sympathetic when Israeli commandos have a survival instinct but not when protestors do?

You see what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear. And you believe what you want to believe.

The "activists" (and I use that loosely) on the 6th ship did not live there. That was NOT their residence. Any weapons they had were tossed overboard. You don't have to be trained for armed conflict to take a pipe and beat someone. The fast ropes are important because information suggests that those onboard the vessel were trying to secure them to the deck. That's an invite to disaster.

The IDF had paintball guns on a sling. Their sidearms were not drawn. When they were attacked, then they drew their weapons.

What would the result have been if they didn't have sidearms and it was their paintball guns vs. the pipes and other items (quite likely firearms) being used against the IDF. What if these "peaceful" activists just wanting to deliver aid murdered or held hostage these soilders? Would there be a massive outpouring of support for these soilders? Not only NO, but he** NO. And I bet you and many here like you would join in the chorus hoping that they all die.

There is such a bigger picture to all of this.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

See the post immediately above this one.

They were far from innocent civilians.

I think you're confused. First of all, as I point out in a reply above, being sympathetic to Hamas is not the same thing as being Hamas. If some fellow in America was sympathetic to the Nazis, do we break down his door and shoot him as if were a member of the German military in the 1930's? No. We don't. In fact we protect his right to espouse his views. And if our military or police force violated law and misapprehended whether he was a threat, we censure them for needlessly violating his rights.

You are essentially arguing that despite the facts of what transpired, they are guilty by association and thus deserve to be stormed at the crack of dawn by commandos with superior resources. Fundamentally what you are supporting is the notion of thought crime. Because they look at Hamas and judge them differently than you do, they deserve the same treatment as members of Hamas who have done wrong by firing rockets at civilians.

48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.

www.guardian.co.uk...


An absolute disgrace. Simple as that.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


"You see what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear. And you believe what you want to believe."

Well then, how do we know the truth? By what we're told?

reply to post by Skellon


Now we know why Goliath died from a sling shot to the head.

Thanks for posting that video.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

You see what you want to see. You hear what you want to hear. And you believe what you want to believe.

Same to you, brother (or sister as the case may be).

The "activists" (and I use that loosely) on the 6th ship did not live there. That was NOT their residence. Any weapons they had were tossed overboard. You don't have to be trained for armed conflict to take a pipe and beat someone. The fast ropes are important because information suggests that those onboard the vessel were trying to secure them to the deck. That's an invite to disaster.

They certainly had been living there for the prior several days. So it's alright if you're assaulted in your hotel room? And people defending themselves against armed assault in international waters have no right to do so because they support a political agenda you don't agree with?

The IDF had paintball guns on a sling. Their sidearms were not drawn. When they were attacked, then they drew their weapons.

Sure, I get this. Well, I mean, this is what the IDF says, and I'll accept it until further evidence suggests otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that they were invading a ship on the high seas in international water. And before you go there, no, the San Remo Manual is not law.

What would the result have been if they didn't have sidearms and it was their paintball guns vs. the pipes and other items (quite likely firearms) being used against the IDF. What if these "peaceful" activists just wanting to deliver aid murdered or held hostage these soilders? Would there be a massive outpouring of support for these soilders? Not only NO, but he** NO. And I bet you and many here like you would join in the chorus hoping that they all die.

In fact if they did such, I would decry them as both foolish and inhumane. I would call for the immediate release of the captured IDF soldiers. And your speculation about firearms is entirely unfounded but I suspect you know that.

There is such a bigger picture to all of this.

I agree, we simply find different pieces of the puzzle to be significant. No harm in that. In debating these matters we will help to expose tiny pieces of the truth regardless of which "side" those pieces benefit.