Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[IDB87]

They also fired percussion and gas grenades before boarding, apparently in an attempt to terrorize those on board.

Used as a dispersal method, and for clearing the top deck before boarding. Gas masks defeats gas grenades, and percussion grenades can be avoided.

Do you have an independent source verifying these photos?

Who would an independent source be?

I don't know much about digital photography, but how would goplayer2008/Blue and the others be able to read the EXIF data from the photos that were posted? Must be some kind of plugin to their browser they can use for firefox or IE or something.

Were the protestors also wearing bullet-proof long johns? If not, why not shoot them in the legs?

That is a good question. It may have something to do with lowering your weapon and making yourself more susceptible to being disarmed or even attacked. That's just speculation, though.

If the protesters were, as you allege, wearing these jackets and that the attackers could have been aware of it, the vests didn't work very well as some activists were shot in the chest.

Well not everyone was wearing a gas mask, nor would everyone be wearing a vest.

Why were the Israelis using live ammunition at all?

Because their paintball guns, stun grenades and tazers were having very little impact on the activists who were still beating them with pipes and chains.

You are assuming that the commandos had a right to violently attack the ships and their crew and that the latter had no right to defend themselves.

If Hamas is a governing party that controls Gaza, and they are at war with Israel, is Israel not allowed to enforce a blockade? They are, and they are also right to stop any maritime traffic (and are required, legally, to do so). The flotilla (morally) can try to break the blockade as a form of civil disobedience, and they also have a right to defend themselves. They weren't defending themselves when they tried to lynch the commandos, one by one, as they were boarding the ship.

Both. Perhaps you could take some time to read up about what civil disobedience is.

Civil disobedience now has a militant form?

What emotions?

The only emotional reaction I’m aware of is yours to my words, presumeably because they don’t fit your preferred narrative and that upsets you. I call a kidnap a kidnap. There’s no need to get emotional about that.

You are using emotion laden words to paint this situation in a certain way. Words like murder, hijack, rob, kidnap, pirates, etc, are all very colorful words that have an enormous emotional slant to them.

If someone says "They murdered and kidnapped the activists" it paints a different picture than someone who says "The soldiers used lethal force against some activists, and the rest were detained and then released."

My preferred narrative is one of neutrality.

All of them were kidnapped and held, incommunicado, in prison, for the vital period when the Israeli were establishing their familiar victim narrative,

They were detained*. Israel's 'familiar victim narrative' will have an impact on whom, exactly? The footage, photos and witness accounts speak clearly enough, to me anyway.

unchallenged by the witnesses whose communicatoin with the outside world had been cut off.

I'm only really concerned with what happened before the shooting, and there's plenty footage of that. The rest can be recalled by the activists, and we'll go from there.

Now the activists have been released they are communicating a very different version of events to that propagated by the Israeli military.

Of course. Israel and these activists aren't on the best of terms. But, what's one 'very different version' that comes to mind? Could you share your most damning link?

Imagine if the first images of the assault released to the world had been videos of protestors being gunned down or, perhaps a photographer with a bullet hole in his forehead, for example.

Very stirring, indeed. But, your own link claims that Israel did not start firing live ammunition until the first commandos from the first helicopter had been jumped.

 

[IDB87]

Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance.

From the body of article: This operation was approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak and will be led by the commander of the Navy, Lieutenant Colonel Eliezer Maron, who is nicknamed “Cheney.” If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force. “We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,” said a high ranking officer. “If terrorists have gotten on the boats or if there is an intention to use hot weapons against our forces, we will use full seriousness and caution. We want to avoid using force but as soon as there will be danger to the life of our forces we will be forced to use live fire as a last resort.

They never planned to gun down anyone. Only if their lives were in danger would they use lethal force, and that's what happened.

Interesting reports.

Reading it highlights the success of Israel's information control strategy. Witness the Pavlovian focus of much of the discussion on this thread, dominated and directed by videos of the chosen the few minutes, posters barking up a blind alley at the bone someone has hung out for them to chew.

OK, but these 'few minutes' are the crucial ones of the boarding - the initial boarding, the brutal beatings of the soldiers, and even of the activists gathering weapons and getting ready for fighting. I may have missed it, but was anyone able to film activists being shot? Regardless of whether or not
the footage was destroyed, it would be interesting to hear what the person filming that has to say.

Why do you put weight on evidence provided by the alleged criminals, who are in total control of the crime scene, the very scene of their own, alleged crime?

Well, you'd have to be able to discount that evidence somehow. People have claimed several photos were taken years before, which is fine if their claims can stand up to scrutiny. What other evidence can you discount? It's not automatically void if it's from Israeli sources, though. It's subject to scrutiny, certainly, but you have to back up your assertions.

So what's your point? What's wrong with protecting yourself against bullets?

Nothing, I suppose. It just makes head-shots more viable.

Can you tell me who was shot, where they were, what they were doing and who shot them? If you cannot, then how you can make the claim that these people were shot in self defense?

Can you tell me who was injured before boarding, who heard the shooting before the commandos landed, where they were, what they were doing, etc etc.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Were the protestors also wearing bullet-proof long johns? If not, why not shoot them in the legs?

That is a good question. It may have something to do with lowering your weapon and making yourself more susceptible to being disarmed or even attacked. That's just speculation, though.

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=27171

In all, the cameraman counted 40 wounded passengers, many with bullet wounds to the legs, apparently to disable them.

 

[BeAChooser]

More description of what the "peace activists" did:

http://www.crethiplethi.com/israeli...nt-activists-aboard-mavi-marmara/israel/2010/

Israeli Navy Soldier Describes the Violent Activists Aboard Mavi Marmara

… snip …

We came down using the other rope, one by one, and every guy that descended was met by 3 or 4 people. And they just started beating him up, tearing him to pieces. It was a lynch.”

“Every guy that came down the ropes was taken aside, and everyone there had metal rods, knives, slingshots, glass bottles. At one point there was live fire, they started firing live rounds, two guys there had live ammunition.”

“They started hitting me with the metal rods, and while defending myself, I guess I broke my arm. At this point, I didn’t even have a weapon in my hands. Any soldier coming down the rope did not have a gun in his hands.”

… snip …

We were empty handed, our weapons were on our back. It’s important to clarify that the weapons were riot dispersal means, we had paintball guns. They fired live rounds. They were firing bullets. Real ammunition.”

“They just came prepared for a battle. We came prepared to straighten things out, talk to them, convince them to unboard the ship. They were just…”

“Every person that got to the boat was stormed, they just came and attacked him. There were soldiers that were thrown off the top deck.”

“I conducted a search on one of the people, on him I found two utility knives, on one person! He had two utility knives, a pocket knife, an extendable metal rod, like a club, in his other pocket he had tear gas and pepper spray.”

Such peaceful activists.

 

[IDB87]

I don't know much about digital photography, but how would goplayer2008/Blue and the others be able to read the EXIF data from the photos that were posted? Must be some kind of plugin to their browser they can use for firefox or IE or something.

Regarding the faked photos, JJ, from your own link:

The images in question were taken with a D2Xs camera.
Here’s a link to the press release on the Nikon site about the D2Xs being released in June 2006. http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2006/0601_01.htm
EXIF data shows images were taken before that. Could it be that the camera’s time and date were not set? Naah, Israel must have time travel ability.

It's the same for the pentax : it did not exist on january 1st 2003 (was out more than a month later)

Another poster says:

The camera used was a Nikon D2Xs, which was released in June of 2006. When left without power for too long, the internal clock battery will go dead and reset to Jan 1, 2006. It seems that the camera was out of use for a while and only started being used again recently. Because of this, the dates recorded are incorrect, but cannot be real since they would have had to be taken before the camera used to take the pictures actually existed.

 

[IDB87]

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=27171

Thanks for the link.

 

[JihadJane]

I don't think they are criminals, alleged or otherwise. I think, to their discredit as professionals, that they allowed themselves to be suckered into a violent confrontation that the people on the boat deliberately provoked. What should they have done? I have no idea, although I would disagree with the proposition of allowing the ship to continue unimpeded.

The attack has been called an act of state terrorism and an illegal act of warfare, so those now controlling the crime scene are, indeed, alleged criminals.

Those shooting activists may well have been doing their job but acting in a professional capacity doesn't protect one from criminal culpability when committing war crimes.

The commando unit was not skilled or trained in sensitive crowd management and it seems they may have been hyped up by their commanders to expect to be confronted the ubiquitous "terrorists", with the use of deadly force high on their list of options.

What is your evidence for the supposition that they acted as they did because of provocation? It wasn't unusual behavior for the IDF though their violence is usually directed against Palestinians rather rather international peace activists on the high seas in the glare of international publicity.

Have any interdictions by the IDF resulted in violent deaths before now? If not then why would they expect to need protection against gunfire unless they specifically intended to provoke such violence.

The IDF has shot and killed civilians and protestors, though it's true that most of the activists weren't expecting live ammunition to be used against them, certainly not in international waters.

Can you demonstrate that any person on the ship who was shot was not actively attacking the Israeli soldiers?

No, though there are multiple witness reports emerging that this was the case in at least some instances. Can you demonstrate that anyone who was shot was "actively attacking the Israeli soldiers"?

I'll repeat the question for which offered your question as an answer:

Can you tell me who was shot, where and what they were doing? If you cannot then how you can make claim that these people were killed in self defense?

 

[BeAChooser]

Ahhh … "peace activists" …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 "Mavi Marmara Passengers Attack IDF Before Soldiers Board Ship" (I believe this one was taken by a "peace activist".)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0 "Censored Footage from the Gaza Flotilla - How Violence Breaks Out"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137799 "Video Shows Flotilla Extremists’ Incitement" (this one is extremely interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU "Flotilla Rioters Prepare Rods, Slingshots, Broken Bottles and Metal Objects to Attack IDF Soldiers" (from security cameras on the Mavi Marmara)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAxAj2KIdU&feature=channel "Flotilla Passenger: "I Want to Be a Shahid (Martyr)"

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03oren.html

PEACE activists are people who demonstrate nonviolently for peaceful co-existence and human rights. The mob that assaulted Israeli special forces on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace. On the contrary, the religious extremists embedded among those on board were paid and equipped to attack Israelis — both by their own hands as well as by aiding Hamas — and to destroy any hope of peace.

… snip ...

What the videos don’t show, however, are several curious aspects Israeli authorities are now investigating. First, about 100 of those detained from the boats were carrying immense sums in their pockets — nearly a million euros in total. Second, Israel discovered spent bullet cartridges on the Mavi Marmara that are of a caliber not used by the Israeli commandos, some of whom suffered gunshot wounds. Also found on the boat were propaganda clips showing passengers “injured” by Israeli forces; these videos, however, were filmed during daylight, hours before the nighttime operation occurred.

… snip …

There is little doubt as to the real purpose of the Mavi Marmara’s voyage — not to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but to create a provocation that would put international pressure on Israel to drop the Gaza embargo, and thus allow the flow of seaborne military supplies to Hamas. Just as Hamas gunmen hide behind civilians in Gaza, so, too, do their sponsors cower behind shipments of seemingly innocent aid.

 

[IDB87]

The attack has been called an act of state terrorism and an illegal act of warfare

By whom? what makes it an illegal act of warfare / state sponsored terrorism? Please use definitions acknowledged by legal experts!

Those shooting activists may well have been doing their job but acting in a professional capacity doesn't protect one from criminal culpability when committing war crimes.

You'd have to have evidence for war crimes to make that accusation.

The commando unit was not skilled or trained in sensitive crowd management and it seems they may have been hyped up by their commanders to expect to be confronted the ubiquitous "terrorists", with the use of deadly force high on their list of options.

Where does it state in that link that the Commandos were not trained for crowd management?

And you posted the exact same link earlier. It still says 'we will use deadly force IF WE HAVE TO" which is why they went in with paintball guns and tazers, not automatic rifles. But, this link has catchy lines like,

The Israeli military, the IDF, planned the Gaza Massacre, and it was approved by the Prime Minister. The 5 million Zionist lunatics sitting in the US military base called Israel are now united in their hysteria to promote war and fascism around the world, all paid for with US tax dollars, and all at the behest of US oil imperialism. A small minority protests the final stages of a bankrupt social order in Israel.

What is your evidence for the supposition that they acted as they did because of provocation? It wasn't unusual behavior for the IDF though their violence is usually directed against Palestinians rather rather international peace activists on the high seas in the glare of international publicity.

Your own link states that the Commandos did not start shooting until three or four Commandos from the first helicopter were jumped and separated from one another.

No, though there are multiple witness reports emerging that this was the case in at least some instances. Can you demonstrate that anyone who was shot was "actively attacking the Israeli soldiers"?

In at least some instances - How many were killed who weren't fighting the Commandos? You have at least one witnesses attesting to the fact that a white flag was wave as a sign of surrender. There is no further detail about what, exactly, was happening, who was fighting who, how many people there were, where it was, etc. But, this translates to executions after surrender.

Can you tell me who was shot, where and what they were doing? If you cannot then how you can make claim that these people were killed in self defense?

Can you tell me who was injured before the boarding, where they were, how they were injured, what they were doing prior to be injured, etc.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAxA...eature=channel "Flotilla Passenger: "I Want to Be a Shahid (Martyr)"

If I met him in person, I would ask him the same question I would ask Jesus, who was incarnated on Earth to die for our sins: if you really want to die that badly, why does someone have to kill you? Why can't you just jump off a cliff?

Anybody know if he got his wish?

 

[JihadJane]

They never planned to gun down anyone. Only if their lives were in danger would they use lethal force, and that's what happened.

They had d to gun people down then. They should never even have been sent to deal with civil disobedience in the first place. They knew there was resistance to their boarding. They should have gone away and thought up a plan that didn't risk people lives.

Furthermore, were their lives actually in danger? We only have their word for it. Witnesses have reported that passengers intervened to protect he soldiers.

OK, but these 'few minutes' are the crucial ones of the boarding - the initial boarding, ...

It was the second attempt at boarding.

... the brutal beatings of the soldiers,

Do you know what happened before and after these beatings or, indeed, before the boardings?

...and even of the activists gathering weapons and getting ready for fighting. I may have missed it, but was anyone able to film activists being shot? Regardless of whether or not
the footage was destroyed, it would be interesting to hear what the person filming that has to say.

The person filming may also have been shot.

Well, you'd have to be able to discount that evidence somehow. People have claimed several photos were taken years before, which is fine if their claims can stand up to scrutiny. What other evidence can you discount? It's not automatically void if it's from Israeli sources, though. It's subject to scrutiny, certainly, but you have to back up your assertions.

Indeed, pretty much all the evidence presented by the Israeli is worthless without independent confirmation. They are defending themselves against accusations of state terrorism and war crimes and yet they have complete control of the crime scene and nearly all physical documentation.

Can you tell me who was injured before boarding, who heard the shooting before the commandos landed, where they were, what they were doing, etc etc.

No. Funny how my question only seems to elicit questions rather than answers. Here it is again. Can you answer it?:

Can you tell me who was shot, where and what they were doing? If you cannot then how you can make claim that these people were killed in self defense?

~~~~~~~

More description of what the "peace activists" did:

...

Such peaceful activists.

What's your point?

 

[IDB87]

They had d to gun people down then.

Yes, as a last resort. Your own link states that it was planned as last resort, which is why they had paintball guns and tazers, and handguns for emergencies. No where did the IDF or the Israeli government plan to go in 'guns blazing'.

They should never even have been sent to deal with civil disobedience in the first place.

Nor should people participating in civil disobedience be planning for a fight.

They knew there was resistance to their boarding.

Yes, which is why they went in with body armor and paintball guns and tazers.[/quote]

Furthermore, were their lives actually in danger? We only have their word for it. Witnesses have reported that passengers intervened to protect he soldiers.

Yes, from the moment they hit the deck their lives were in danger. They were each grabbed and separated from one another, and beaten with clubs, pipes and chains.

Some of the people caught the first commando before he touched the deck - a few started to hit him, but a lot of people moved in to shelter him with their bodies.

First three soldiers on the deck. Doesn't look like anyone is diving in to shelter them, nor rush them inside to 'treat' them.

It was the second attempt at boarding.

The first being by boats which were driven off by hoses and projectiles. Semantics?

Do you know what happened before and after these beatings or, indeed, before the boardings?

We know that the activists claim people were injured, but whom, or by what, no one seems to know. Then we have the soldiers boarding, which includes using stun grenades and tear gas to disperse the crowd on the upper deck, to make for a more safe landing.

The person filming may also have been shot.

Certainly. Any confirmation that they were?

Indeed, pretty much all the evidence presented by the Israeli is worthless without independent confirmation.

This is not skepticism.

They are defending themselves against accusations of state terrorism and war crimes and yet they have complete control of the crime scene and nearly all physical documentation.

This isn't state sponsored terrorism, nor is it a war crime. Could you please explain the reasoning and logic behind these accusations?

No. Funny how my question only seems to elicit questions rather than answers.

It's the build up to who was shot. If the Israelis did indeed provoke the activists to abandon civil disobedience and savagely beat these soldiers, resulting in the 9 deaths, it is very important.

If the Israelis did not provoke the activists to abandon civil disobedience, and they beat the soldiers as part of their plan to elicit the harsh response they got, than that is also important.

Can you tell me who was shot, where and what they were doing? If you cannot then how you can make claim that these people were killed in self defense?

I know of two, a doctor and a journalist. One was shot in the top part of his head, possibly from a helicopter, and the second was killed while apparently caring for the wounded. No other information is available.

What's your point?

The point is that they are not engaged in civil disobedience.

 

[IDB87]

JJ, any comments on this?


Regarding the faked photos, JJ, from your own link:

The images in question were taken with a D2Xs camera.
Here’s a link to the press release on the Nikon site about the D2Xs being released in June 2006. http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2006/0601_01.htm
EXIF data shows images were taken before that. Could it be that the camera’s time and date were not set? Naah, Israel must have time travel ability.

It's the same for the pentax : it did not exist on january 1st 2003 (was out more than a month later)

Another poster says:

The camera used was a Nikon D2Xs, which was released in June of 2006. When left without power for too long, the internal clock battery will go dead and reset to Jan 1, 2006. It seems that the camera was out of use for a while and only started being used again recently. Because of this, the dates recorded are incorrect, but cannot be real since they would have had to be taken before the camera used to take the pictures actually existed.

 

[JihadJane]

By whom? what makes it an illegal act of warfare / state sponsored terrorism? Please use definitions acknowledged by legal experts!

State terrorism, not "state sponsored terrorism".

The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

"This action, totally contrary to the principles of international law, is inhumane state terrorism."

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador:

"A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare."

You'd have to have evidence for war crimes to make that accusation.

It's not an accusation. It's a statement about war crimes culpability.

Where does it state in that link that the Commandos were not trained for crowd management?

It doesn't but do you really think that's what commando units are trained for?! Note that I said "sensitive crowd management", BTW.

... It still says 'we will use deadly force IF WE HAVE TO" which is why they went in with paintball guns and tazers, not automatic rifles. But, this link has catchy lines like,

There was no need to use deadly force at all. That's why there's is such massive outrage all over the world at what the Israelis did and why the Israelis are so keen to blame the activists.

Your own link states that the Commandos did not start shooting until three or four Commandos from the first helicopter were jumped and separated from one another.

So that makes it's okay to start shooting people?

In at least some instances - How many were killed who weren't fighting the Commandos?

Who knows? Do we even know how many people were killed yet.

Can you tell me who was injured before the boarding, where they were, how they were injured, what they were doing prior to be injured, etc.

No. Is my question really so hard to answer?

Can you tell me who was shot, where and what they were doing? If you cannot then how you can make claim that these people were killed in self defense?

 

[IDB87]

State terrorism, not "state sponsored terrorism".

They did not attack the vessel. It was boarded in an attempt to halt it's current course which would interfere with the blockade. The Commandos were subsequently attacked which resulted in lethal force being used.

Is a Turkish flagged vessel attempting to break a blockade enacted by another sovereign state an act of war?

It doesn't but do you really think that's what commando units are trained for?!

Explicitly trained? I don't think so. But, their training may include crowd management, sensitive or not.

There was no need to use deadly force at all.

Based on the videos we've seen of the activists beating the soldiers, tossing them to lower decks, stabbing them with knives and broken bottles, it would not be illogical, or immoral, to assume their lives were in danger, resulting in the use of deadly force.

So that makes it's okay to start shooting people?

You asked for provocation. See above.


How about those faked photos?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador:

"A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare."

Wow. So regardless of the reason for the attack, you cannot hit another vessel in international waters, period? Then Norway and Russia has been at war for years, if not decades.

There was no need to use deadly force at all. That's why there's is such massive outrage all over the world at what the Israelis did and why the Israelis are so keen to blame the activists.

Funny, the Norwegian navy attempted to stop, board, and shoot at a foreign vessel (the Elektron, see earlier in the thread) in international waters very recently and there was no outrage from the world whatsoever.

 

[bit_pattern]

Israel left shot student to bleed

Australian consular officials had repeatedly requested the medical documents, and the lack of information about surgery performed in Israel was now complicating his son's treatment.

''Ahmed was left to bleed for over 12 hours before medical treatment was availed to him,'' Mr Talib told The Age.

(...)

Ahmed's Talib's wife Jerry Campbell, 22, and sister Maryam, 18, were also on the Turkish protest ferry and were later taken to the Beersheba detention centre.

''[The girls'] treatment by the Israeli Defence Forces was horrendous. They were handcuffed, held at gunpoint, then left under the scorching sun for hours, without access to water or even toilet breaks at times,'' Luqman Talib said.

 

[bit_pattern]

"The IDF released on Friday an audio reproduction of the moments before Monday's raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla."

LMAO! I wonder what else they "reproduced" for the worlds media

 

[bit_pattern]

Looks like Israel is already stepping back from the "Al-Qaeda mercenaries" claim.

So I'm sure people will stop citing it as a fact now, right? ....Right?


Oh, who am I kidding.

Commenting on the retraction, Blumenthal writes, "The more Israel’s claims about the flotilla’s terrorist links are challenged, the more they fall apart."

Like the "reproduced" audio... What a farce, but the zealots here eat up this propaganda BS with aplomb