Israel attacks Gaza aid convoy in International Waters, 9 reported dead

[chuffinel 10]

a bit of cit and paste,well heres the real drill ,firstly you have to be under threat then you have to shout out a challenge that you will open fire if the other person does not cease to stop,if you do open fire then you automatically have your weapon confiscated and sent to forensics for testing,then theres a case to answer ,unless of course you are in a free fire zone but that usually takes an act of war,the israelies were not at war with the passengers on that boat

 

i dont know if your old enough to recall sgt clegg of the parachute regiment who went to prison because he fired at a car that had failed to stop at a checkpoint in northern ireland,he believed the occupants intended harm to him or his collegues but was still charged,now thats army discipline,it turned out later on appeal he was released but the facts are you do not discharge a weapon unless ordered to or your life is under threat,simple as that ,and the israeli marines were well out of order shooting people at such close range three or four times when a defensive strike with a weapon would have sufficed to put the victim out of the way ,looks to me like bad order and they were just running amok because they had the firepower,you do know that marines train in unarmed combat dont you? so it would have been reletevly easy for a trained marine to dissarm or subdue a civilian

 

Your words not mine.

The Israelis do consider themselves at war with Hamas.

How many "peace activists" does it take man a ship anyway.

They were trying to run a blockade, put themselves in harm's way and got harmed.

At the very least it was an act of supreme stupidity.

Are you sure that you weren't there ?

Your version of events seems to be absolute fact.

[chuffinel 10]

did you drop this ?

 

 

 

http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/Dummy_1566_19424233_0_0_14317_300.jpg

 

Excellent, intelligent contribution to the thread.

Maybe you are part of a tab team, oops mean tag team.

[hard2miss 10]

I'm not quoting any of my opinions as irrefutable fact.

The poster in question IS quoting his version as fact.

I don't know, along with everyone posting on here, FOR A FACT what really happened.

But it seems that it was 100% Israel's fault even though IT APPEARS that to some people they were attacked first.

You prove your version then.

I know I can't prove mine.

It appears to the majority of people that had they not boarded the ship in the manor they did then NONE of this would have happened. The argument is whether they had a right to drop in armed unannounced how they did with air triggers.

The question isn't about if people felt they had a right to defend themselves to repel an invading boarding party. Israel does not OWN the ship, Israel does not OWN the sea i which they were in.

 

Stop trying to excuse the in- excusable.

[depoix 11]

Your words not mine.

The Israelis do consider themselves at war with Hamas.

How many "peace activists" does it take man a ship anyway.

They were trying to run a blockade, put themselves in harm's way and got harmed.

At the very least it was an act of supreme stupidity.

Are you sure that you weren't there ?

Your version of events seems to be absolute fact.

the peace activists were not ,repeat not running the ship they were passengers,you are digging yourself in deeper by the minute with your lame excuses

admit it ,the israelies over reacted and when it went pear shapped they tried to dump any evidence then started the propoganda ball rolling ,but it didnt work out did it they have been sussed big time

[Wildcat 10]

It appears to the majority of people that had they not boarded the ship in the manor they did then NONE of this would have happened. The argument is whether they had a right to drop in armed unannounced how they did with air triggers.

The question isn't about if people felt they had a right to defend themselves to repel an invading boarding party. Israel does not OWN the ship, Israel does not OWN the sea i which they were in.

 

Stop trying to excuse the in- excusable.

 

They didn't drop in unannounced they shot one of them before they landed on the ship. You can hear the guns hots and the report of his death on the YouTube clip from Al Jazeera.

 

There are allegations they brought with them an assassination list... certainly they shot two at point blank range between the eyes which is what you would expect of an execution.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-hijacking-of-the-truth-film-evidence-destroyed-1992517.html

[depoix 11]

They didn't drop in unannounced they shot one of them before they landed on the ship. You can hear the guns hots and the report of his death on the YouTube clip from Al Jazeera.

 

There are allegations they brought with them an assassination list... certainly they shot two at point blank range between the eyes which is what you would expect of an execution.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-hijacking-of-the-truth-film-evidence-destroyed-1992517.html

that would be a hell of a shot from a moving assault craft or helicopter , you dont suppose they waited whilst they were on board before shooting them do you

[Wildcat 10]

that would be a hell of a shot from a moving assault craft or helicopter , you dont suppose they waited whilst they were on board before shooting them do you

 

I didn't say the one shot before they got on the ship was executed.

 

Watch the William Tong Video from Al Jazeera embedded in to this report:

 

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/

[Kingmaker2 10]

the bombing of the King David Hotel wouldn't have come under them. The building, despite its name, was the British MilitaryHeadquarters, and the main target was the files the building contained, not the people in the building for whom a warning was issued to give them a chance to escape..

 

Callippo what you fail to point out is that the majority of those 91+ deaths and 41 injuries were hotel staff so in fact the King David Hotel was STILL essentially a hotel regardless of whether the British Military had a HQ in part of the hotel.

 

The time warnings are disputed with the British having conducted investigations concluding that no one that had enough authority to evacuate the hotel received any warnings.

 

Any warnings that some say were delivered to hotel switchboard operator only 25 minutes before the blast in any case.

 

Now If you've ever been in a fire drill you know how long it takes to evacuate a large building of its staff and to get away far enough from the building in question.

Now given that the first warning was supposed to be delivered to the hotel switchboard operator then it would be quite a fair bet that the information may not be have been received with great urgency or seriousness, and certainly 25 minutes seems a painfully short time in which to firstly allow the switchboard operator to evaluate if the call was serious or not, then to contact her manager about it and then her manager to evaluate and investigate this call to see if it was worthy of notifying his superiors about it, and then to actually evacuate the hundreds of people a significant distance from the hotel.

 

So really the 25 minute warning really doesn't wash.

If they really wanted to avoid any casualties then why didn't they use a devise that wasn't timed?

And if they choose to go down the timer route then they should have at least given a sizeable lead time between first warning and the bomb going off.

25 minutes is simply not enough time even if the warning was delivered directly to the man in charge of the hotel.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Kingmaker2

[chuffinel 10]

the peace activists were not ,repeat not running the ship they were passengers,you are digging yourself in deeper by the minute with your lame excuses

admit it ,the israelies over reacted and when it went pear shapped they tried to dump any evidence then started the propoganda ball rolling ,but it didnt work out did it they have been sussed big time

 

So why were there ANY passengers on a blockade running ship unless they were there for confrontational purposes ?

Would you have boarded that ship as a passenger knowing the controversial circumstances ?

I certainly wouldn't unless I was prepared to face any consequences that might arise including any "over-reactions" from the boarding party.

As I said before, stupidity of the highest degree.

[chuffinel 10]

It appears to the majority of people that had they not boarded the ship in the manor they did then NONE of this would have happened. The argument is whether they had a right to drop in armed unannounced how they did with air triggers.

The question isn't about if people felt they had a right to defend themselves to repel an invading boarding party. Israel does not OWN the ship, Israel does not OWN the sea i which they were in.

 

Stop trying to excuse the in- excusable.

 

You've got to be kidding.

It was announced days before that the ship wasn't going to be allowed through.

Perfect opportunity for the Arabs to project themselves once again into the innocent victim role.

[depoix 11]

I didn't say the one shot before they got on the ship was executed.

 

Watch the William Tong Video from Al Jazeera embedded in to this report:

 

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0531/raw-video-reporter-claims-israelis-fired-activists-boarding-ship/

very interesting , i heard the words "ship in international waters", mentioned several times as i said in an earlier post,the truth will eventually come out

[depoix 11]

So why were there ANY passengers on a blockade running ship unless they were there for confrontational purposes ?

Would you have boarded that ship as a passenger knowing the controversial circumstances ?

I certainly wouldn't unless I was prepared to face any consequences that might arise including any "over-reactions" from the boarding party.

As I said before, stupidity of the highest degree.

they were there to bring in aid and break the blockade , some were reporters others wanted to show support ,your failing miserably now ,clutching at straws