What is usually a 'last resort' generally isn't accepted as 'high on the list' of options. In before 'The list only had one option'.
It is high on their list of options because they are storm troopers.
Depends on who the commandos are facing. If it is a group of activists intent on becoming martyrs and lynching the Commandos, surely not.
Do you have any supporting evidence for these claims?
Activists practicing Civil Disobedience may given them the cold shoulder, but certainly not a crowbar to the head.
The activists were refusing entry to heavily armed potential murderers in international waters. They had a right to defend themselves, something their attackers appear to have no trouble claiming for themselves, despite being the aggressors with all the technology of modern warfare.
Physical violence is not practiced by those who practice civil disobedience. No true Scotsman and all, but that is the definition of non-violent protest
.
Those who did practice non-violent protest were also met with disproportionate violence. The brutality continued after their kidnap. They were also robbed of their possessions.
Some of the activists decided to physically defend their boat from attack by armed, masked, armored commandos in international waters under cover of darkness. Big deal! This was obvious to the Israelis before the boarding. The Israelis had plenty of time to rethink their strategy. The flotilla repeatedly told them that they were unarmed ("hot weapons"). The IDF, the original aggressors, chose to stick with their decicion to use extreme violence by sending in storm troopers, a decision made days before any contact with the flotilla
Is there generally an accepted, practiced, logical, and easy way to disable an entire flotilla of ships that does not include destroying them? I can't think of one.
Think a bit harder! There are some suggestions up-thread.
The flotilla consisted mostly of small, easily blockaded ships.
They -were- properly prepared for defusing it, physically anyway. Paint ball guns, tear gas, stun grenades are all used to crowd dispersal/control, and are all non-violent (although incredibly agitating, it seems!). When the activists wear gear that defeats most of the Commandos non-violent methods of control, that in itself escalates the violence.
In most cases paint ball guns, tear gas, stun grenades (and "plastic" bullets) may be mostly non-lethal but they are certainly not "non-violent"!
There are many witnesses now claiming that the IDF opened fire before their storm troopers hit the deck.
The same can be said for the flotilla - they knew they could not break the blockade, and their presence outside of the no-traffic zones would only incite violence. They had no business trying to defy a blockade, morally right or not.
In your opinion. Other ships have broken the blockade.
Most of the world believes they had every right and that if governments won't act to effectively challenge Israel's crimes against humanity then it is up to ordinary citizens to do so.
You appear to be saying that the only way that Israel could respond was with violence. Is that right?
The clubs come up and down regardless of the wall. If there is someone shielding the commandos, I feel sorry for them!
You better go on a shooting spree then.
I also feel sorry for the soldiers and can understand why it made them cry.
Again, the presence of gas-masks and kevlar vests escalates the violence to the point where non-lethal methods are ineffective. Then you have soldiers who are in a helpless situation, being beaten on, and they have guns and the OK to use them in a last option situation. What do you expect?
Commandos should never have been sent onto the ship in the first place. The responsibility for the deaths and mutilation lies with those who sent trained killers onto an unarmed civilian vessel in international waters.
Again, gas masks defeat tear gas. Stun grenades are noisy and bright, not physically harmful. I don't think they expected a 'safe' landing, merely a landing into a controlled area, which it wasn't.
No, it was you who ludicrously claimed that the grenades were used to clear the area for a safe landing, perhaps forgetting that humans aren't cattle.
Tear gas and stun grenade are designed to terrorize and cause panic.
Who were these people, where were they shot, what was going on during, who saw them get shot, etc.
See post above for their names. The other information you requested is either unknown or I can't be bothered to dig it up for you, who, if I am not mistaken, claims they were all shot in self-defense.
It is enough to say that lethal force was justified based on the clips we saw.
Thanks for your opinion.
A minute is a long time in that situation, and we have no idea how long that footage carries on before they start shooting.
Why's that then?
After that, it is up to the discretion of the soldier to use lethal force or not (example: moving room from room would warrant discretion when confronting a hiding activist who is not armed) and this is where I would agree with you. However, BAC posted a story from (I believe) a Jordan newspaper in which there were a high number of activists with gunshot wounds to the legs, which is a non-lethal way to disable an opponent, and it also coincides to what Bit posted about the young man with a gunshot wound to his leg (perhaps completely unrelated). If these commandos were 'shooting first and asking questions later' why would there be such a high number of leg wounds?
See my post above. It may that their commanders abandoned their, initial shoot-to-kill policy in favor of a later, more sensitive , shoot-civilians-in-the-legs, crowd-control tactic.
Has civil disobedience always implied a violent reaction? Or is this new?
You're right that civil disobedience is usually non-violent. I don't regard fending off pirates to be a justification for murdering the defenders, however. Speaking personally, I regard acts such as setting fire to the South African Embassy in London to be civil disobedience, too, as well as meeting police violence with violence. That is using civil disobedience in a more general sense, though i.e. refusal to obey a law because one believes the law is immoral.
"Why must there be a conspiracy about Israel? Why are these activists unable to control their violence?"
Having more problems answering my questions?
Did you share this legal opinion with us already? I may have missed it. I'll look through again, but if you could link it for me, I would appreciate it!
The UN Security Council gathered for an emergency session on Monday. Practically all its members condemned Israel’s actions with the peace flotilla, naming them “banditry and piracy, murder conducted by a state that has no excuses, no justification whatsoever.” In a formal statement the council also demanded the immediate release of ships and civilians held by Israel.
Russia’s spokesperson in the Council has particularly stressed that “the use of weapons against civilians and detaining vessels in the open sea without any legal grounds is a flagrant violation of universally recognized international regulations.”
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-01/international-community-condemns-israel.html
You yourself are arguing that it is fine to use lethal force as self-defense against potential murderers.
.
