Yama Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) I will deter my judgement until more facts are known but really, it is somewhat disturbing how quick some people are jumping to conclusions again. Edited May 31, 2010 by Yama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Ghost Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 I will deter my judgement until more facts are known but really, it is somewhat disturbing how quick some people are jumping to conclusions again. Well, lets see, it involves Israel and the use of force... it's not jumping to conclusions, for some people it's a Pavlovian reflex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in Qatar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 The 'Quarantine' of Cuba was diplomatic doublespeak. The US announced its intention to board Soviet ships, but cooler heads prevailed. Thank God we did not have to put our money where our mouths were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in Qatar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 What about the US qurantine of Cuba during the missile crisis? Israel is in a de-facto state of war with Hamas, and has the rights to blockade it's ports. (Pardon me, I accidentally posted my reply downrange.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in Qatar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Some rioting in Turkey. The Turkish PM says there was no contraband on the ships. Now the two governments are calling each other liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Ghost Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 There may well have been no contraband... but there were blunt weapons, knifes and sling-shots. The main problem was the intelligence indicated that there will be light, mostly passive opposition, like there was on the other ships, but here the soldiers were caught by a mob intending to lynch them. I know a number of people who trained for this scenario, they were instructed to first try to reason with the people on the ships and then if that doesn't help use paintballs (probably CS rounds). Guns were to be used as a last resort in case of a life threatening situation. In my book, someone tries to stub or club me, he has the will and the means to kill me, I'll shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in Qatar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Ghost Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up.There probably was a screw up, but not by the guys on the ship. IMHO, landing one by one on the ship led the soldiers to a situation where they can be picked one by one. But you know, hindsight is always 20-20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in Qatar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Perfectly true. One of the tricks of a special operation is world-class intelligence and planning. The Powers That Be sent those guys into a bad situation. Once there, I hold they messed up, but I am willing to change my mind as facts come to light. All in all, the IDF failed at several levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted May 31, 2010 Author Share Posted May 31, 2010 If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up. I guess if they had let themselves to be clubbed to death and/or taken hostage, it would be a bit more embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up. The boarding method looked retarded, so the fault was with whoever decided on the method and not with the troops sent in. BTW – the conversation is focused on irrelevant details. The question is what the Arabs do next. Either there won’t be another flotilla or it will have a military escort from as many Arab countries as the Turks can muster support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Turkey has not really been an Israeli ally since the Erdogan government took over. They haven't really been a real US ally since refusing U.S. requests to use Turkey to invade Iraq. In fact given Turkey's recent tilt towards Islamism and trying to make nice to Iran and Syria, I wonder how long before they quit or are invited out of NATO. Turkey IS an Israeli and US ally, and incidentally also a member of Nato. Thats why this is such a bloody mess. Wouldnt surprise me now if every tinpot dictator who dislikes the West will try boarding Western Ships to 'inspect' them for weapons, and they will all use the Israeli action as justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 You cannot enforce an exclusion zone farther out than the territorial waters. You can disagree, but they broke the law and is now facing the shitstorm. Really? In that case why did both Germany and Britain (and many other nations) board neutral ships in international waters during both world wars, without said neutral nations (including the USA) making much fuzz about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ant Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Illegal, schmillegal. This is just typical of an age where everyone goes to great lengths to follow the literal word of the law to a T while doing his best to circumvent its spirit. They knew exactly that Israel wasn't just going to sit by and watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Ghost Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Turkey has no interest in making amends with Israel. It appears that Erdogan has stated to Ehud Barak that whenever there's a choice between PLO and Hamas he'll side with Hamas as it's his "sister movement", so his intentions are clear. Turkey is steadily moving away from the Ataturk constitution towards becoming an Islamic state.As a side note, William Gladstone had this to say about the Turks: "... Wherever they went a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force as opposed to government by law..." I'd be more then glad to see us respond to Turkey by building a monument to the Armenian holocaust and support Kurdish independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 The whole purpose of this flotilla was to embarrass Israel and destroy relations with countries like Turkey. Funny though that no ones sends aid convoys to the Kurds these days.The organizers were either complicit in arranging the provocation, totally naive or allowed themselves to become “Useful idiots”. With 700 people aboard there was no way to control them and at the very least there was instigators aboard to ensure violence happened. However I think the IDF and Shin Bet, Mossad failed to properly identify the potential threat and prepare for it. Once it was clear the landings would be opposed, tear gas, stun grenades and fire monitors should have been deployed. Larger ships should have been used to force the vessels off course and deluge them with water. As for Turkey, they have to be a tad careful, many parallels can be drawn between the Pals and the Kurds, if they continue to go down this route, their complaints and actions may come back to haunt them. I however doubt anyone wants to go to war over the Palestinians. However a war between Turkish forces and the IDF would get pretty hardcore in a hurry, both side take their soldiering seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorzeny Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Really? In that case why did both Germany and Britain (and many other nations) board neutral ships in international waters during both world wars, without said neutral nations (including the USA) making much fuzz about it? Have to add: Legally. If nobody has the power or will to smithe thee, you can do whatever you want, its just not legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted May 31, 2010 Author Share Posted May 31, 2010 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at SeaExcerpt: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; ( engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; © 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. Seems to be internationally accepted and used manual. Art. 146 of same:146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they: (a) are carrying contraband; ( are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who areembodied in the armed forces of the enemy; © are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction; (d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or concealdocuments; (e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade. Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoTanker Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Did the Elite Navy Special Commandos get their weapons back after the raid? Seriousely though, these protesters/voulonteers/activists/what ever sure are stupid.. Wtf did they realy expect? Doesnt matter whos right and whos wrong here, a blind retard could have seen this coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aevans Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up. Excuse me, but when were you ever a "highly-trained naval commando"? What do you know about their mission or the constraints they were operating under? I'm not a naval commando, nor do I play one on TV, but unlike you I've worked closely with them (US Navy SEALs) and watched them train. I would never assert that they could have done any better than Sayeret 13 did, given the touchiness of the situation. They're trained to fight people with modern small arms and explosives. They aren't riot police. And even riot police are equipped with firearms and will use them if forced to to defend themselves. Also, in the case of trying to resist physical attack aboard ship, there's the little detail of not being able to retreat. Riot police can always run away if they are too much outnumbered or faced with unexpected weapons. Commandos with their backs to a bulkhead or a rail? Not so much. Perfectly true. One of the tricks of a special operation is world-class intelligence and planning. The Powers That Be sent those guys into a bad situation. Once there, I hold they messed up, but I am willing to change my mind as facts come to light. All in all, the IDF failed at several levels. Only if your idea of special operations and intelligence comes out of Frederick Forsyth novels. Edited May 31, 2010 by aevans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Martin Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) Perfectly true. One of the tricks of a special operation is world-class intelligence and planning. The Powers That Be sent those guys into a bad situation. Once there, I hold they messed up, but I am willing to change my mind as facts come to light. All in all, the IDF failed at several levels. Excuse me?!?!?!? Say you're being assaulted by a bunch of savages with metal poles, firebombs, and stun grenades (oh yeah, they were peaceful alright) and some trying to kidnap you. Are you gonna lay there and take it, or are you going to shoot some of the sons of bitches? You never cease to fucking amaze me. Israel screwed the pooch by conducting this outside its territorial waters. But I bet these assholes don't try to send another flotilla to Israel again. Lesson learned. As to the casualties, just like some Americans learned in Boston, when you go for soldiers, don't be surprised when they shoot your stupid ass dead. Oh yeah Paul, John Adams defended those said soldiers in court, and got them all aquitted of wrongdoing. Edited May 31, 2010 by Jim Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 What does "outside neutral waters" mean here exactly? Outside sovereign waters of a neutral state or outside international waters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber_Ghost Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Did the Elite Navy Special Commandos get their weapons back after the raid? Seriousely though, these protesters/voulonteers/activists/what ever sure are stupid.. Wtf did they realy expect? Doesnt matter whos right and whos wrong here, a blind retard could have seen this coming.They're the useful fools. The whole thing was a setup - they either breach the blockade and then Erdogan is seen as the savior of Gaza, Israel has not reason to stop the next ship or the one after and 10 ships down the line comes a ship with weapons - OR - Israel takes over the ship in which case it's showed to be the villain. A win - win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 http://www.icrc.org/...125641f002d49ce will give some light to legal aspect. 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. According to this Israel was well within their rights to stop "convoy" and when resisted, use force. Edited May 31, 2010 by Sardaukar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Martin Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 http://www.icrc.org/...125641f002d49ce will give some light to legal aspect. 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. According to this Israel was well within their rights to stop "convoy" and when resisted, use force. Section (a) puts a whole different light on the legality of the raid, thanks for that. Were they given prior warning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now