Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship

Out of control commandos? they were just doing their job... if they had been out of control there would have been 100s dead not 10-20.
 
In the scheme of things not a significant number compared to what "out of control" commandos would have done... 600+ mostly unarmed civilians trapped on small/medium sized ships... a small number of heavily armed men out of control could wipe out 100s within minutes.
 
Going trigger happy doesn't mean unloading everything you have, out of control for a few seconds with weapons like those can lead to a large number of unneccecary damage .
I'm not saying they were deffinatley out of control because I don't know and I doubt anyone on here knows. I was puting out the possiblitiy of them being out of control or having orders to open fire. But I do personally believe that the large number of deaths are suspicious but will hold that back until further evidence.

*edited*

again for lack of sleep and general **** fingers.
 
again - they were in international waters - the IDF had no legal right to board them

If a ship was sailing for Britain and had been ordered to stop, and it responding by claiming it would run any military blockade we put up would you expect the navy to wait till it was in our waters or deal with it as far out as possible to minimise the risk?
 
If a ship was sailing for Britain and had been ordered to stop, and it responding by claiming it would run any military blockade we put up would you expect the navy to wait till it was in our waters or deal with it as far out as possible to minimise the risk?

Was said blockade legal?

*off to sleep from me, so no response sorry! that's if anyone actually cares ;)*
 
Last edited:
Was said blockade legal?

Anyone proved it to be illegal yet?

Or has anyone proved the boarding was illegal?

By that i mean the people who have studied the ridiculously complex and and massive list of laws governing this sort of international affair?
 
If a ship was sailing for Britain and had been ordered to stop, and it responding by claiming it would run any military blockade we put up would you expect the navy to wait till it was in our waters or deal with it as far out as possible to minimise the risk?

minimise what risk?

why would we order a ship to stop in the first place when its in international waters? what grounds would we have for stopping a ship? your example makes no sense...

FWIW - when the royal navy/customs etc.. stop drug smugglers they wait until such ships are in UK waters - otherwise there isn't much point is there - since they can't prosecute them in a UK court for anything...
 
That video has no context. If the soldiers have boarded the ship and drawn weapons (perhaps even fired there weapons already) why is that stabbing so wrong?

The other one shows attacking as soon as the commandos land in which case a stabbing could be disproportionate (although legally probably not).
Yes of course stabbing someone in the back who poses no immediate threat to you* is perfectly justifiable and right. Clap clap clap.


(* carrying a loaded gun is not a threat.... or if it is, can I stab the armed police at the train station?????)
 
Anyone proved it to be illegal yet?

well they're not pirates or slave traders

Israel isn't in a state of war with another country whereby they could set up an exclusion zone around the conflict

the ship was in international waters, flying a Turkish flag - the IDF has no legal right to board the ship
 
Yes of course stabbing someone in the back who poses no immediate threat to you* is perfectly justifiable and right. Clap clap clap.

(* carrying a loaded gun is not a threat.... or if it is, can I stab the armed police at the train station?????)

though I don't blame the soldiers for following orders and acting in self defence your armed police example isn't too great either

how about - armed men break into your house in the middle of the night

in that instance do you consider their weapons to be a threat - are you right to stab someone carrying an automatic weapon in the back or hit them with poles, after they've broken into your house illegally?

if people broke into my house in the middle of the night carrying automatic weapons I probably wouldn't attack them but I'd like to think I was within my rights to do so

I'd have thought that passengers/crew on a ship that's being boarded illegally have the right to fight off the people attempting to board the ship
 
Last edited:
well they're not pirates or slave traders

Israel isn't in a state of war with another country whereby they could set up an exclusion zone around the conflict

the ship was in international waters, flying a Turkish flag - the IDF has no legal right to board the ship
So, this is a pet peeve of mine, and sorry to single you out.

But laws are only recognisable if people will willing submit to them. Israel will not.

If you want a another example, people called the Iraqi Conflict (2.0) illegal. It is an absurd notion. Israel can do as it pleases until ordered not to by the UN - through mandates that will no doubt be vetoed by the US.... so she will carry on doing as she pleases.

though I don't blame the soldiers for following orders and acting in self defence your armed police example isn't too great either

how about - armed men break into your house in the middle of the night

in that instance do you consider their weapons to be a threat - are you right to stab someone carrying an automatic weapon in the back or hit them with poles, after they've broken into your house illegally?
Armed policing breaking in... after they telephoned me several times to say they were coming, and informed my landlord and letting agent that they were going to come, and tried every way possible to encourage me to move out (analogy extended)? And after they have not fired on me, or beaten me, or posed any direct threat to me whatsoever.... Yeah I totally can see how stabbing them in the back is 100% okay.

You fail.
 
minimise what risk?

why would we order a ship to stop in the first place when its in international waters? what grounds would we have for stopping a ship? your example makes no sense...

FWIW - when the royal navy/customs etc.. stop drug smugglers they wait until such ships are in UK waters - otherwise there isn't much point is there - since they can't prosecute them in a UK court for anything...

The boats made it public that they where going to run the blockade.
 
well they're not pirates or slave traders

Israel isn't in a state of war with another country whereby they could set up an exclusion zone around the conflict

the ship was in international waters, flying a Turkish flag - the IDF has no legal right to board the ship

That doesn't answer the question.

Can you cite the relevant laws?

Has any legal team actually made a case that could be put up?

until lthey have the action is neither illegal or legal, it's unknown in it's legality.
 
Gaza aid ship protesters try to storm BBC Manchester

Protesters demonstrating against the Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship have attempted to storm the BBC in Manchester.

More than 800 people marched through the city centre and down Oxford Road, where the crowd surged at the BBC's entrance, smashing its front doors.

One man climbed to the top of the building to plant a Palestinian flag and there were at least three arrests.

Protesters said they were also angry about the BBC's coverage of Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/10199808.stm

What a shower of lowlifes. :D
 
They don't have to be slave traders or pirates, sufficent grounds for suspicion of smuggling weapons could be enough to allow the Israelis to exercise juristiction in this case. They already have the public intention on record that the ships would attempt to run the Israeli blockade.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom