It's Official: There was No Humanitarian Aid on Mavi Marmara

Please call your doctors, you are out of medicines.

Delusional and lost. It's ok, it's ok. Just call 911 and tell them you are suffering from mental disorders.

reply to post by virgom129


Hi virgom,

They were armed with more than just live pistols, I spotted a Mini-Uzi on one of the commandos at the stern of the ship in the footage submitted.

At the close range these engagements took place, a pistol in the hands of a trained marksman, would be very precise. The total amount of rounds shot would suggest to me that they were facing overwhelming numbers at close range and some of these were self proclaimed martyrs; in other words fearless.

It is possible that these antagonists were drugged up aswell, though this is pure speculation based upon the number of shots fired.

Kind regards,

Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon


You still are not anwering why so many were killed with Headshots...


At the close range these engagements took place, a pistol in the hands of a trained marksman, would be very precise.


"Very precise" so you are saying they aimed for the head???

reply to post by virgom129


If the reports and photos of armored vests are to be believed, then I would assume that the centre mass was aimed for first, then the heads took priority.

In my opinion, the 19 yr old student may well have been the first target, as he took the most rounds. They are equipped with comms, therefore I would assume that when the first shooter dropped the first target, he would have reported that they were equipped with body armor.

The British SAS are trained to 'double tap' their opponents.



Other special forces have a similar priority. Contrary to Hollywood, and as you may appreciate ,there is no guarantee that a real life target will collapse when shot. This also serves to make incidents like this seem very excessive.

I have no doubts that these men were scared. Anyone who says they are not scared when their life is on the line is either on drugs, a martyr or full of it.

If the antagonists were indeed wearing body armor, then it is also possible to conclude that the troops shot a few more times than necessary out of the desperation to kill the threat.

Lasty, do we have proof that all of those killed were shot by only one shooter?

In the Iranian Embassy assault by the British SAS, one of the targets was found to have 80 rounds in him. This was not one soldiers excessive use of a weapon, It was multiple SAS troops unloading their MP5's into the same target.

Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon


In most of the video I've looked at (not much) I did not see the activists in body armour...

The only time I saw it was when it was piled neatly on the floor, all clean and unused, for pics..

reply to post by Skellon


If the antagonists were indeed wearing body armor


You continually say you are unbiased, just pointing out facts,
so why use "antagonists" to discribe the activists???

Sounds like you have already made up your mind prior to any investigation...

reply to post by colec156


There is a big difference between people from foreign countries who converted to the RELIGION and people who are actual descendants from the Biblical people. Do you know what I mean?

reply to post by virgom129


Hi virgom,

From the footage submitted by both sides, I am convinced that the first live rounds were used after the insertion took place.

In the event that I am proven incorrect, I will happily admit I was wrong.

The biggest clue to the minority of passengers being 'antagonists' was the attacking of the first troop down the fast rope.

Aggressing a commando before his boots have touched the deck is 'not normal'. I cannot stress that enough.


Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon


Attacking a ship full of civilians with "crowd control" weapons would be more than enough to give the civilians the impression they were being attacked...

Personnaly I would think I was going to die and do everything in my power to defend myself..

These people (at least most) would not know they were only "crowd control" if in fact thats how it actually happened..

reply to post by virgom129


They were 'peace activists'.

Why did they not get on their knees with their hands behind their heads?

Why did they not retreat to their cabins?

Why do we not hear continuous screaming?

Any sane person would have done any of these things when confronted with special forces.



Anyone, unless they were military trained, martyrs or both.

There is one other option, but it delves into deep conspiracy and speculation.

The leader of the 'resistance' had intel that the commandos would be armed with non-lethal weapons prior to the interception.

But we have to then look at an 'inside job'.

What is the motive?

I have quite the conspiracy theory on all of this.



Skellon.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by Skellon]

reply to post by Skellon


And all that is your "unbiased" opinion???

I've said before that I like reasonable debate of facts...

I also said you give some good points but now your bias is too much to even make it worthwhile me debating...

Thanks for the chat

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by virgom129

 

They were 'peace activists'.

Why did they not get on their knees with their hands behind their heads?

Why did they not retreat to their cabins?

Why do we not hear continuous screaming?

Any sane person would have done any of these things when confronted with special forces.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by Skellon]

For some reason that statement brought back a vision of Jews walking peaceably to their deaths at the hands of the SS.

No resistance, no arguement, just do as your told and goodbye.

Why should anybody sit back and be bullied about, least of all by the nazi idf?

Somebody needs to stand up to these thugs.