The Gooner Forum

DanielD wrote:

Cockerill's chin wrote: For the good of the forum, I will stop posting. I would never have posted on this topic but when innocent civilians on a humanitarian mission are massacred it is a bit rich for you to come on and attempt to explain it away. Tragic incident; vile thread.

Fuck me.. WHY would they not go to the Ashdod port than and get the food to Gaza? WHY would they attack the soldiers boarding the ship?

It's not a bloody humanitarian mission, it's a cheap propaganda trick that worked, if you look at the comments in the world.

I'll bet my house Hamas are celebrating right now!

The irony of this thread being that DanielD wanted to give a 'balanced view', but anybody that disagrees with him is in the wrong..

frankbutcher wrote:I hardly think that Israel needs sticking up for - they've got the USA to do that for them.

Why did the forces need to board the ship anyway? ... to make sure there weren't any weapons on there. That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? The only reason they'd have weapons is to protect themselves from Israel.

Incidentally - were any weapons found????

The weapons we would be looking for aren't only weapons for the short range of the trip to gaza. We're looking for every piece of weapon that will arm Hamas' troops.

If the ships would have arrived to the Gaza port, this would open a Pandora box to every terrorist who want to smuggle "fun" goods to gaza..


PS

Just watched BBC news. Why didn't the reporter asked the orginaizior of the "aid trip" why the people on that ship attacked the soldiers, boarding the ship?

Frank - To be fair, Daniel said he wanted to redress the balance in what he perceived to be unbalanced coverage. Therefore, he isnt really being dishonest in that way now.

frankbutcher wrote:

DanielD wrote:

Cockerill's chin wrote: For the good of the forum, I will stop posting. I would never have posted on this topic but when innocent civilians on a humanitarian mission are massacred it is a bit rich for you to come on and attempt to explain it away. Tragic incident; vile thread.

Fuck me.. WHY would they not go to the Ashdod port than and get the food to Gaza? WHY would they attack the soldiers boarding the ship?

It's not a bloody humanitarian mission, it's a cheap propaganda trick that worked, if you look at the comments in the world.

I'll bet my house Hamas are celebrating right now!

The irony of this thread being that DanielD wanted to give a 'balanced view', but anybody that disagrees with him is in the wrong..

Well, he's wrong in that case.

The real innocent people were on the other five ships that boarded the Ashdod port this noon. All the material in these ships will be delivered to Gaza after it being checked by Israeli authorities. I wonder why no one is mentioning that?

Were the other five ships boarded (without violence) PRIOR to the sixth one?

Flotilla was a very cynical PR move by Hamas.

Haniyeh bragged on Friday that if it landed in Gaza, it would be a success as it would show the Israeli navy's weakness.
But that if the flotilla was stopped, it would also be a success in showing Israel stopping aid to Gaza.

Look at the demonstrations in London and Paris, they were pre-planned for days, police were told they would be happening to day regardless of what happened to the flotilla.

But the thing is, Gaza has a lot of goods and food. Hundreds of tunnels from Egypt see to that.


A country has perfect right under international law to enforce which boats can and cannot enter it's waters, and the boat was told not to enter Gaza, but instead go to Ashdod under escort, which the other five boats did.


If people are concerned with taking food and aid to where it is really needed, take it to Haiti.

Cockerill's Chin and I seldom agree on this topic, but this was far from a simple humanitarian mission, and the people who fought the commandos on that boat were far from innocent civilians.

A thread deserving of locking if ever was one.

marcengels wrote:A thread deserving of locking if ever was one.

Why? If discussion stays civil it is ok. Other on subject got locked despite participants wanting to carry on, but discussion from some descended into vitriol.

QuartzGooner wrote:

marcengels wrote:A thread deserving of locking if ever was one.

Why? If discussion stays civil it is ok. Other on subject got locked despite participants wanting to carry on, but discussion from some descended into vitriol.

Because the motivation for starting the thread will only lead to arguments that have a well-worn tread on this site.

marcengels wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:

marcengels wrote:A thread deserving of locking if ever was one.

Why? If discussion stays civil it is ok. Other on subject got locked despite participants wanting to carry on, but discussion from some descended into vitriol.

Because the motivation for starting the thread will only lead to arguments that have a well-worn tread on this site.

In that case lock all "Wenger Out" threads!

marcengels wrote:A thread deserving of locking if ever was one.

Don't agree, mate.

It's in the basement and people who choose to post on this thread (or any other thread for that matter) are welcome to do so... if it's not your cup of tea, just ignore it. Simple

I know it's almost guaranteed to cause arguments as it's obviously a sensitive and passionate issue for some, but I'd like to see it remain unlocked - although, experience suggests that won't be the case once the minority start throwing unsults, which is a shame for those who are capable of debating sensibly

DanielD wrote:I would do the best I can to represent my country on this situation. I watched some BBC\Sky, and the reports are not at all accrurate.

Anyone with a question regarding this, please ask.

In defence of the Flotilla...

From what I've read and understood, Israeli commando's boarded the ship in international waters, some 40 miles OUTSIDE of the Gaza exclusion zone. Now, this is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances, such as suspecting weapons of mass destruction, and even then permission from Turkey (the ships country of origin) should be sort. It seems at this stage, that any attempt to board the ship was actually ILLEGAL and therefore any attempts by those on board to repel the invasion could be seen as reasonable.

Israel...

Why didn't they wait until in Israeli waters?? why not wait until they were trespassing within the exclusion zone?? (see final paragraph before answering )

The attack...

Surely a close-quarters confrontation should always be the last resort? by dropping commando's onboard so quickly in a situation where they were heavily outnumbered and where the mood onboard was incorrectly judged, they were essentially creating a potential flash point that could have been avoided? - or at the very least delayed as endless negotiations took place! - again, as they were still a long way out from the exclusion zone, and very much in international waters, what was the rush??

My intial conclusions (subject to change as more info becomes available)...

I sympathise with Israel in that this was clearly a PR stunt of sorts, and some altercation was probably inevitable and Israel would have to work very hard not to look bad in all this HOWEVER they seem to have bungled it completely by failing to exhaust all avenues of negotiation and mediation and have ended up illegally storming a ship in international waters, creating an uneccessary flash-point and sadly it has ended in the deaths of several civilians.

Self defence...

From what I've read, it seems reasonable to me to believe that the commandos, once onboard, were acting in self defence at it seems there was a violent confrontation. However, it's WHY they were onboard in international waters that is the issue. After all, if they weren't onboard in the first place, these deaths wouldn't have occured.

Israel will probably argue that they boarded in international waters as stopping 6 ships bound for Gaza within the exlcusion zone would be difficult, but - did they seek permission from Turkey?? and most importantly... was it illegal to board??? - once we have these answers, it'll be easier to ascertain whether Israel are guilty or not, because, as I said in the previous paragraph, it seems credible to me that, once boarded, the commando's were probably acting in self defence.

g88ner wrote:
In defence of the Flotilla...

From what I've read and understood, Israeli commando's boarded the ship in international waters, some 40 miles OUTSIDE of the Gaza exclusion zone. Now, this is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances, such as suspecting weapons of mass destruction, and even then permission from Turkey (the ships country of origin) should be sort. It seems at this stage, that any attempt to board the ship was actually ILLEGAL and therefore any attempts by those on board to repel the invasion could be seen as reasonable.

Israel...

Why didn't they wait until in Israeli waters?? why not wait until they were trespassing within the exclusion zone??

The ships were given loud and clear orders by the Israeli navy to stop sailing towards Gaza or face inspection of cargo.

The other five ships went to Ashdod, and the food/medicine cargo was transferred to Gaza without incident.
This ship should have done the same.

The boarding in international waters is legal under international law if Israel feels there is a threat to it's sovereignty.

With arms on board the ship, there was such a threat.

The attempts by the crew to fight the commandos was idiotic.

The commandos were holding non lethal weapons, and wanted to search the ship. Incredibly, they had "paintball style" non lethal crowd control weapons drawn when boarding.

Only when attacked did they draw lethal small arms from their holsters.

This sixth ship should count itself lucky it was not attempting to sail to North Korea.

From what I understand (which I accept isn't everything!) I can see that the peaceful protests onboard turned out to be more volatile than expected and, once onboard, I can understand the self defence argument. I can also, of course, understand the need to board the ship at some point to inspect the cargo and/or force a change of direction. It was a PR stunt designed to make Israel look bad... sadly, perhaps with Israel's help, it worked.

My main issue at this point is the legality of boarding the flotilla in international waters - if and when this is confirmed, it'll be more clear.

In defence of the Flotilla...

From what I've read and understood, Israeli commando's boarded the ship in international waters, some 40 miles OUTSIDE of the Gaza exclusion zone. Now, this is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances, such as suspecting weapons of mass destruction, and even then permission from Turkey (the ships country of origin) should be sort. It seems at this stage, that any attempt to board the ship was actually ILLEGAL and therefore any attempts by those on board to repel the invasion could be seen as reasonable.

Israel will probably argue that they boarded in international waters as stopping 6 ships bound for Gaza within the exlcusion zone would be difficult

Israel announced several times before the ships arrived to the area, they were gonna stop the ship. We made contact with the ship saying they can't go to Gaza, as it's a war zone, and all the metarials will be delivered from port Ashdod. The ship replied "Negative, Negative", and continued at it's course. If it would get into Gaza waters, it would have provoked more chaos as the Hamas navy (very small one) would get involved, and that would be even worst.

We can't allow anything to go into Gaza, without checking it ourselves for anything that threatens Israel. I totally believe these ships had nothing but food and supplies, but if they were gonna board in Gaza, it would open a pandora box.

At the current situation, Turkey our more of an enemy than friends. They've become more radical in their views each passing day, and it's getting worrying. I would be sad if I were a Turk.

The attack...

Surely a close-quarters confrontation should always be the last resort? by dropping commando's onboard so quickly in a situation where they were heavily outnumbered and where the mood onboard was incorrectly judged, they were essentially creating a potential flash point that could have been avoided? - or at the very least delayed as endless negotiations took place! - again, as they were still a long way out from the exclusion zone, and very much in international waters, what was the rush??

Here is a point we totally agree on. I think the IDF should've considered more carefully their actions. Maybe supply the soldiers with more tools to dispersing violent protesters (water pipe, tear gas, rubber bullets if needed).

I think the fact they didn't do it, was becuase they really thought there won't be a physical confrontation. The first soldiers went down with paint guns expecting real peace activists, and when they were attacked they couldn't do anything.

Were the other five ships boarded (without violence) PRIOR to the sixth one?

Yes.