It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

page: 72
271
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Flotilla ATTACKED THE IDF.

...live fire from the activists.

Amazing.


In a manner of speaking, yes.

RealClearPolitics has posted a video that shows the commandos being attacked by the "humanitarians" the moment they set foot on the ship. BBC and Sky are showing what appears to be the same incident from a different angle, though not as lengthy.

(apologies if these videos have already been linked).

Originally I was as outraged as everyone else (though not in the "DEATH TO ISRAEL" frothing-at-the-mouth outrage as many here). Whether or not Israel was right to board the ship is certainly debatable; however, if I were a IDF soldier in the same position, I most certainly would fire to defend my life.




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canslli
And you know what really pisses me off?

If Israel was concerned about the frotilla and a confrontation between the IDF and the ships were inevitable, the Israeli government could have given the frotilla a chance to reach the shores of Gaza while being escorted. Then they could see if it they were indeed ships bringing aid or some smugglers trying to arm the people in Gaza.

Is that so hard to do? Or is it better to raid the ships and kill civilians.


This is a very, very good point Canslli. The IDF could have done just that.. You, I, the readers, and they know it too.

But no, the crazy Zionists wanted to set an example so that others would be too fearful to follow in their footsteps. Murder and Fear are their mediums of intimidation.

For Christ's sake they just killed a bunch of people because they could. This mirrors the way they treat the Palestinians day after day there.

A truly DISGUSTING act that will be seen by historians as an embarassment to humanity as a whole just as many of us can see it for being that today.

Oh, and as a side note to this. CNN has been reporting on it and to their credit seem to be somewhat objective at this moment. I suppose they will wait for Obama to crawl out from under his desk once he's learned what Zbigniew Brzezinski thinks of the matter. Once the Wizard of OZ has spoken to Obama we'll see CNN march to that drum beat at that point. But while they wait it is rather odd to see them employing a modicum of objectivity. Alas it wont last though.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
My 2 cents..


Were Israel justified in using lethal force as a response to being beaten with metal bars and stabbed with knives?

YES

Were Israel justified in boarding the ship in international waters?

NO


Simples



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by warequalsmurder
 


Check out the comments on the CNN site. They are swallowing the Israel lie hook, line, and sinker. Seems those people have not been following it from the beginning, as many of us were.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


If anyone boarded my ship with weapons and uninvited I would have "attacked" them too. Now, the question is who is the attacker in the first place?

The problem is that this could have been an intentional provocation and it worked. This will give a very strong excuse to Israeli enemies to retaliate. And IDF fell for this one just like that! They really got carried away along their previous actions and now they are sitting ducks.

I think, there is a traitor among Israeli commanders.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
For Christ's sake they just killed a bunch of people because they could. This mirrors the way they treat the Palestinians day after day there.


Sorry, but the facts do not bear that out. If Israel simply wanted to kill a bunch of people as you claim, they could have sunk the ship. They could have gone in weapons hot and killed many more people. But that did not happen.

From reading the responses I have, it seems most people have not reviewed the facts but have only read the headlines.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


I'm sorry, but if you rappel onto someone's ship from a helicopter, nothing you subsequently do can be called "self defense"



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Why would you drive a boat into a military blockade? .. That's my only question.. surely they knew Israel would stop them, and I'd gather in the back of their minds they knew Israel would shoot at them..

Sounds to me like a publicity stunt gone terribly wrong.. they thought to get some news and attention by steering their boats into the Israeli blockade to get arrested or turned around, then they would demonize Israel for being heartless. It probably woulda worked. But Israel instead kills some of the aid members and well, now no one is having a good day.

But I would consider the aid members "innocent" .. had they not been armed. Because they were armed I question their motives, their purpose.. in the battle, it was no Israel shooting unarmed civilians, it was a gun battle on both sides, 20+ dead or wounded, 7 Israeli commandos wounded.

This is especially probable considering that Israel has had no problems letting humanitarian ships enter Gaza, there has not been a case in a very long while of a ship being stopped and turned around. But then again, perhaps that's because none of the other ships had soldiers on them?

Whole story stinks like 10% of the facts have been released.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


But that happened because they invaded the ships. Actually, in this case, the people on the ships were defending themselves.

The MSM are, in my opinion, already trying to show the facts in a way to favor Israel.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Watch the video, listen to the gunshots, then report back



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Why were they trying to step their unwanted Khazar feet on the ship? Were they given bloody invitation? If you come onto my private properly and intrude my home, and I do a background check on you and find that you had a past experience killing babies and stealing organs, I would defend myself with more than metal bars. Any sane American and human being would.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
attacking people who have automatic weapons is a bit silly.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 31-5-2010 by yeti101]



Seeing that footage again i really don't understand why they did not fast-roped down at a higher ground, the bridge or near that, doing that you also would have direct command of the ship..This doesnt make any sense, i would expect more from these hardened and tranied commando's..
But then again we only see footage of one or two of the 9? vessels, others had more "civilized" people on board, they were also treated more subtle..


My question is, did all the people on board those vessels knew they were going through a blockade?some say they did this more often so they didnt expect this, i dont know..

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You believe the IDF saying the passengers had guns? Even after the story changed 4 times, getting progressively worse?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Israeli army releases 'flotilla footage'

news.bbc.co.uk...

"Pro-Palestinian campaigners say the soldiers opened fire unprovoked when they landed on the aid-carrying ships." - Doesn't look that way to me...

Watch the video on that please, you can clearly see Israeli troops coming down onto the boat via helicopter and as soon as they land, the activists on the boat rush in and start to beat and attack the soldiers.

In my opinion, its no wonder shots were fired and people died, to me it looks like self defence.

I don't think any of it is right, but i don't think people should start to blame Israel so quickly when they are greeted in such a manner (Obviously they are not going to be very welcomed, but if the activists didn't start attacking and throwing the Israeli soldiers overboard as soon as the landed, i don't think it would of ended with death).

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Concept X]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by makeitso
 




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.



Pillay said the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

www.foxnews.com...



U.N. envoy Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Wednesday called the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip illegal and urged Palestinian militants to halt cross-border rocket attacks from the Hamas-controlled territory.

Tutu said the blockade was "a siege" and a "gross violation to Human Rights", echoing rights groups which accuse Israel of collective punishment. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter last month referred to the blockade as an atrocity.

www.alertnet.org...


Thanks. I read that.
Its pretty easy to accuse, especially if no info about the specific law, or any specific details is provided, isn't it?

Its kind of strange that the U.N. Human Rights chief and the U.N. envoy accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade, but can't provide the specific law they broke. What specifical law are they breaking regarding people and goods going to Gaza?



SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.




[edit on 5/31/10 by makeitso]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

see this video if it has been posted yet.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TSawyer
 




OK, whatever you say. They been advertising this trip for the longest including their destination. Israel warned them many times they would not be allowed in.

Now, don't you think that once Israel said they wouldn't let them in that this group would see the writing on the wall and give up the trip?

They wanted the confrontation and the publicity that comes with it.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
If anyone boarded my ship with weapons and uninvited I would have "attacked" them too. Now, the question is who is the attacker in the first place?

The problem is that this could have been an intentional provocation and it worked. This will give a very strong excuse to Israeli enemies to retaliate. And IDF fell for this one just like that


I doubt that anyone on the ship would be stupid enough not to realize what could and would happen if they attacked Israel commandos boarding the ship. Anyone with good sense knows that if you are a civilian, armed with only metal poles (where did they get all those poles?), chairs and knives (supposedly) and a military unit is boarding your ship, you stand down unless you want blood (your's) to be spilled).

You are very well right that this could have been an intentional provocation. But by whom? Israel certainly botched this; they did not send in enough commandos in the first place to reasonably control the situation. That is a horrible, if not purposeful (on someone's part) mistake. However, it should be very clear from the footage and reports coming out that the "humanitarians" are in no way innocent and have an equal amount of blood on their hands.

I think as the facts come out, outrage (except for the most frothing at the mouth Israel haters) will lessen.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   


102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or


Seems Israel blocking this ship is doing JUST that no? They are preventing this ship from getting there for the sole purpose of denying it other objects essential for its survival. (Building materials, medicine, ect ect)



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You believe the IDF saying the passengers had guns? Even after the story changed 4 times, getting progressively worse?


News always changes.. as the story is wound together. 7 Israeli's were shot, I find it hard to believe 7 cases of friendly fire..

And as I've stated Israel has let ships with Humanitarian aid enter Gaza.. why attack one flotilla (especially a Turkish one.. Israel and Turkey are usually on good terms with each-other) ..

I'm not saying Israel was "defending" themselves.. in all likelihood Israel tried to board the boat and the people on board refused, Israel pulls their guns, they pull their guns, and a battle ensues.

I don't believe for a second that they entered the boat and shot indiscriminately for little reason.. I know that's what some people on the thread want to hear.. but I'm a realist, I look at things objectively.



new topics

top topics



 
271
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join