Ships to Gaza incident

[Sirotnikov]

You've got it backwards, the military force were attacking them. They were defending.

woosh

Conditions of exemption
48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

Loss of exemption

52. If any other class of vessel exempt from attack breaches any of the conditions of its exemption in paragraph 48, it may be attacked only if:

(a) diversion or capture is not feasible;
(b) no other method is available for exercising military control;
(c) the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the vessel has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and
(d) the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or expected.

So you have proof that the 9 specific individuals killed did anything untoward, they weren't killed by stray bullets fired from the soldiers, etc?

No? Well then. **** off.

Given that it is well established that there was an armed confrontation during which the boarding soldiers were attacked and defended themselves, there is no legal need to justify the death 9 specific individuals.
Even if they were killed by stray bullets (which we know they weren't because of close range) the boat passenger's initiation of the conflict justifies the IDF use of force in principle. If the armed resistors caused a situation where innocent civilians were hurt, its their fault because of the exceptions I mentioned in this post.

[Asher]

Your posts are too long-winded and droll to read fully.

You are now changing the argument to whether the naval blockade is legal in the first place.

I've questioned that many times in this thread. Your inability to read it is your own problem.

Sadly for you, there is no ICRC statement specific to the naval blockade. There is however the ICRC statement on the Gaza "closure":
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...-update-140610

I always thought you weren't retarded. I'm sadly mistaken.

[Asher]

Given that it is well established that there was an armed confrontation during which the boarding soldiers were attacked and defended themselves, there is no legal need to justify the death 9 specific individuals.
Even if they were killed by stray bullets (which we know they weren't because of close range) the boat passenger's initiation of the conflict justifies the IDF use of force in principle. If the armed resistors caused a situation where innocent civilians were hurt, its their fault because of the exceptions I mentioned in this post.

One of them was shot in the forehead. I'm glad you concede this must've been a close-range shot: an Israeli soldier shot a man whose only weapon COULD HAVE BEEN A STICK...point blank to the forehead.

Dig those holes, Siro...dig them deep.

[Asher]

To summarize:

Israel boarded a neutral-flagged ship in international waters to enforce a legally questionable blockade (which the International Red Cross is saying should be ended immediately) and shot some men armed with sticks point-blank to the forehead purely in "self-defense", because a highly trained Israeli commando clearly could not aim at the torso, legs, etc when "in close proximity".

Is that correct?

[Sirotnikov]

Your posts are too long-winded and droll to read fully.

Asher speak for "I don't know how to counter your arguments."

I've questioned that many times in this thread. Your inability to read it is your own problem.

I always thought you weren't retarded. I'm sadly mistaken.

Sorry to only address it now. I visit rarely. Would you have me go back in time and address it earlier?

And seriously - You accuse me of avoiding your questions about the blockade's legality immediately after you decide my post addressing this exact point is "too long". You can't have it both ways.

[Asher]

Asher speak for "I don't know how to counter your arguments."

I didn't even read most of them. Seriously, too long and you're too droll. The only long posts I read belong to posters with personality.

Sorry to only address it now. I visit rarely. Would you have me go back in time and address it earlier?

I would prefer if you didn't say I'm "now" claiming something when I've been claiming it repeatedly in this thread.

And seriously - You accuse me of avoiding your questions about the blockades legality, immediately after you decide my post addressing this exact point is "too long". You can't have it both ways.

When did I accuse you of that?

The blockade isn't legal, and the fact that you think the Red Cross' condemnation of it doesn't include the blockade means you're certifiably retarded. By 'closure' they are referring to the lack of free imports of humanitarian aid. The whole ****ing article starts off with the preface of the Israeli raid of the flotilla.

[Sirotnikov]

One of them was shot in the forehead. I'm glad you concede this must've been a close-range shot: an Israeli soldier shot a man whose only weapon COULD HAVE BEEN A STICK...point blank to the forehead.

Dig those holes, Siro...dig them deep.

You bore me.

The close range shots all completely support and justify the IDF narrative of a close quarters fight which resulted in soldiers shooting at their attackers with their backup pistols.

It's been well documented in pictures the attackers had commando knives (which reuters tried to edit out) and they injured soldiers critically (s lso documented in the pictures).

Claiming they were poor defenseless bozos unjustly attacked is incredibly dishonest on your part.

[Asher]

A man doesn't shoot another man in the forehead point-blank in "self-defense". Especially if you're an exceptionally well-trained Israeli commando.

Don't bull**** me, Siro, I'm not some weak-minded Israeli soldier. I'm a free thinking man.

Your accusations of Reuters trying to hide "the fact" of the knives is hilarious, too. Oh, the entire world is anti-Israeli, isn't it Siro? Life's a ***** when you unilaterally attack people, ignore international law, starve 1.5M in Gaza, then look for support from the world. Poor, victimized Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

To summarize:
Israel boarded a neutral-flagged ship in international waters to enforce a legally questionable blockade (which the International Red Cross is saying should be ended immediately) and shot some men armed with sticks point-blank to the forehead purely in "self-defense", because a highly trained Israeli commando clearly could not aim at the torso, legs, etc when "in close proximity".

Is that correct?

Not at all.
It has been established by documented proof, and witnesses that
a) the attackers were armed with metal rods, axes and knives (some appear to be commando knives).
b) the attackers inflicted heavy wounds on at least 10 soldiers
c) the attackers took 3 injured soldiers below deck, and took hold of their backup pistols.

IDF says they were fired at with live bullets (possibly from the captured pistols).

[Asher]

I love how "the attackers" are not the armed commandos storming a foreign-owned boat at night with night vision in international waters, but the civilians armed with sticks who are rightfully on their own vessel.

I don't care what the IDF claims. I don't trust them at all. They've already admitted to editing recordings they've released. Anyone who takes their word on what happens is a certifiable ******.

[Sirotnikov]

A man doesn't shoot another man in the forehead point-blank in "self-defense". Especially if you're an exceptionally well-trained Israeli commando.

Most people were indeed shot at the feet (as seen in video evidence, I'll find the link later today).

If you're outnumbered and under direct attack you draw your gun and shoot the person attacking you where you can.

Don't bull**** me, Siro, I'm not some weak-minded Israeli soldier. I'm a free thinking man.

Your accusations of Reuters trying to hide "the fact" of the knives is hilarious, too. Oh, the entire world is anti-Israeli, isn't it Siro? Life's a ***** when you unilaterally attack people, ignore international law, starve 1.5M in Gaza, then look for support from the world. Poor, victimized Israel.

Oh do me a favor and stay relevant will you?
Even Reuters apologized for editing the photos this way, and its clear by context the decision was made by a less than objective local Reuters editor in Turkey.

[Asher]

It's astonishing that for someone who claims there's so much clear evidence, you've actually shown none of it.

Why did Israeli confiscate all recordings made by media on the flotilla if they had nothing to hide, by the way?

[Sirotnikov]

I love how "the attackers" are not the armed commandos storming a foreign-owned boat at night with night vision in international waters, but the civilians armed with sticks who are rightfully on their own vessel.

I don't care what the IDF claims. I don't trust them at all. They've already admitted to editing recordings they've released. Anyone who takes their word on what happens is a certifiable ******.

Now you're just a dolt.
All claims (a) through (c) are documented by video and pictures taken by the passengers themselves, including IHH members, and the fact the soldiers arms were captured is also admitted by several accounts including IHH members.

[Sirotnikov]

It's astonishing that for someone who claims there's so much clear evidence, you've actually shown none of it.

I'm willing to provide - take your choosing, which of my claims would you like to see evidence of?

[Asher]

I want to see footage showing the attackers attacking with knives and live rounds.

All things I've seen show only sticks and chairs.