Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

I've never seen area for a ship (except for an aircraft carrier to give the layman an idea of just how big a flight deck is). Length, beam and displacement (weight) are commonly given descriptors. I'd put the two ships as the same in class and size if I were classifying them.

 

yes I know, but since we dont know this for either ship its a moot point, the mavi marmara at its largest area is bigger then the Exodus.

same class and similar size

 

No, same. Size classifications for vessels have a range.

 

Shosh,
you lose yourself in semantics. The US Department of Justice for instance lists batons as non lethal weapons. When you point out that so called 'non lethal weapons' can indeed kill, you're of course right. So what? It doesn't mean anything since it is not how the term (or the sort of weapon) is commonly used.

Point is, police uses guns for deadly force. What your quote, wherever you took it from, describes is excessive force. While batons can be deadly, police doesn't use them to kill but to subdue people. In that way batons are typically employed by riot police and that is how the Brits let their Commandos use them during the boardings in the late fourties - to subdue, but not to kill. They specifically gave their troops riot control training. That the Brits still bloodied people with their approach is true. It was, considering the opposition, probably inevitable.

How was that, in some early post here folks said that the Israeli soldiers were fighting for their lives - and had no choice but to shoot? Yeah? The Israeli soldiers were given that choice by officers sending them there armed with guns. The British commandos in a similar situation were unable to shoot attackers simply because they had no guns. Their superiors deliberately did not arm them with firearms but only with truncheons in order to avoid escalation. They exercised self-restraint.

The Royal Navy wanted it that way to avoid civilian casualties because they put the mission first - even when that meant increasing the risk for their soldiers. It means that the Royal Navy went to great lengths to avoid killing people on board of the ships. And it means that unlike the Israelis they got the mission right: To stop the ships without needlessly creating martyrs and bad press.

And that is what the Israelis didn't do, and that is what the article is about and that is what Israel is (rightly) being criticised for.

That's the point you've been missing all along, and if I may add, it is a point only wilfully missed.

 

Ragusa, you again point out that the Royal Navy, with greater experience, training, and resources, went to great lengths to avoid deaths. Yet they also failed. Sure, they caused fewer deaths over a longer period of time, but they still caused deaths. To expect a blockade to be enforced with 0 casualties is, frankly, ridiculous.

 

NOG, the point Ragusa makes is that they went to far greater lengths than Israel did to prevent deaths -- both before and during the boarding. This should be glaringly obvious to any who cares to look....

 

Rags, Ive posted the tactics used by the British at the time with batons, 'braining' suspects, those tactics didnt change until later years, yes a baton is safe, if used accordingly, the british didnt use them to strike the backs of legs and other fleshy areas, they hit their opponents in the head.

If the Isralies werent armed they would be dead, 2 were nearly killed as it was.

Your advocating that it was Ok to kill the Isralies? because if they didnt have their guns they would have not survived, they didnt stand much of a chance when they boarded, this is a different time, back then the common tactic was to charge your men into enemy machine guns and hope someone makes it, today commanders are responsible for the lives of the men under their command, If I sent in a team with no side arms and they were killed, I'd be in the s**t especially if an investigation revealed that if they had those sidearms they could have possibly saved their lives - I'd be facing charges.

As the article states

so the marines still beat the s**t out of them and carted them off to internment camps, what the british did was not gentle and it was not humane.

 

They were nearly killed because they weren't expecting resistance, though the idea that something could go sour with boarding a ship should have occurred. One often said theory is that they were under political pressure to act as soon as possible.

Considering the loss and kill suffered during a blockade of years, I doubt the British were ok with sending their men to their deaths. Heck, most of their casualties happened in cases where the marines were thrown overboard.

 

I agree with you Shaman, but the tactic was the same, hundreds of men swamped the ships, its the same as the beach landings in Normanday, sheer numbers were what swung it, add the weak but determined resistance.

I dont know if it can be said that they werent expecting resitance, any idiot would expect resitance in this case... I think this was a display more then a military maneuver.

Israel cant win this situation, either:

They attack and board the ships using full force, the result : minimum friendly casualties, high unfriendly casualties. Israel gets crucified for being heavy handed.

They let the ships pass, the blockade is ineffective. Israel is underminded - possible outcome, more ships are sent and more ships violate the blockade, weapons are passed into gaza, the war escalates.

Israel do what happened. They board with minimum force. Ill equipped soldiers are landed one at a time onto the deck, they suffer casualties. Israel still gets crucified for boarding at all, but on top of that they look stupid for suffering casualties.

 

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still ongoing. Let's face it, people tried to break a blockade, failed, and died. Why there is a hue and cry about the legal nicities about this confuses me. Someone will also have to explain to me why we have so many posts about why the British were better at blockades 50 years ago then the Israelis.

 

Read through the thread. When the point was first made, it was a valid point, since it was brought up to establish a precedent. The continued posts covering the subject are here because some people feel the need to argue even the most glaringly obvious points when they contribute to an opposition argument in even the most minuscule of ways.

Some very well could have died, but not all of them -- or even most of them. The activists were trying to throw the Israelis off the boat, which isn't usually fatal.

 

yes Snook, its still going, were all arguing our same points over and over again

really? 7 marines died from being thrown over board, men who were trained to survive the worst conditions, also... these people were being beaten before being thrown over board, have you ever tried to swim with broken bones or concussion?

It was never a valid point, as I said immediately, it regards a completly different time and situation - its also tertiary evidence, lacking any real evidence.

 

Shoshino, life or death after being thrown overboard is largely a function of the height from which you fall. When falling from something as large (and tall) as a carrier, there is a palpable risk of serious injury or death. Falling from such a height, the ocean may as well be made of concrete. A ship the size of the Mami Marmara, on the other hand? Not so much.

I'll let Ragusa handle this one himself. Suffice it to say that I remain convinced that you are arguing relevance solely because you don't like his point.

 

How high above water was the Mavi's deck above the water? A human reaches terminal velocity surprisingly quickly, if you're not in a clean dive formation.

 

pretty high, they were thrown from the 2nd deck. it hurts like hell if you mess up a dive from the side of a pool, let alone a possible 30ft drop

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Mavi_Marmara_leaving_port.jpg

yes I know this, molecules of liquid become more solid when compressed. your ability to survive after being thrown over board also depends heavily on your ability to swim at the time, which, if youve been severly injured by multiple hits with metal poles may be severely hindered. Lets also remember that the mavi marmara was movig at the time, creating a surge which could pull bodies under the water.

 

But you see, Shoshino, Israel is a democracy. That means that their soldiers should let themselves be killed by terrorist sympathizers, and that the country should not get all upset over a few rockets launched into their territories -- it's just the price of democracy to lose a few citizens to terrorist attacks. No other country would be expected to exercise such restraint in similar circumstances, but . . . ah, I'll quit there before I go into a rant.

Bottom line, it wasn't a "Freedom Flotilla", that doesn't pass the smell test. What it was was a PR operation, and although the Israelis came out ahead in terms of body count, sadly they came out behind in the world court of public opinion -- which is obviously not an unbiased court.

Oh, and before the whole "siege mentality" thing comes up again, they pretty well are under siege, as near as I can tell. They have military superiority, but that doesn't mean much if you don't actually use that superiority.

 

I think it doesn't have to do with the fall or even the injuries, but more of how much they weight. With the gear they have, they were probably weighted down so much they drowned. It also depends if they were boats around (which would be kinda stupid if they didn't) to rescue the soldiers overboard.

Nope. Terrorists sympathizers and people concern with impoverished and subjugated land is reeeeally different. And the situation in the middle east is NOWHERE near simple as this side is good, that side is evil. In fact, a lot of people in Israel could certainly also be considered terrorists, only difference with Hamas is they accomplish it differently. There unfortunaly is too many extremists in both side. To reestablish peace in the area, there would have to be very moderate leaders on both side who would be able to control the more extreme members which, frankly, will probably never happen...

 

true enough, maybe we should start ignoring it and get on with our lives

 

If the people on the boats really wanted to get supplies to the poor, impoverished folks, they would have cooperated with the blockade and the humanitarian supplies would have gotten through sooner than they have now. I know there's a bit difference between humanitarians and terrorists. The thing is, I am not sure that these people are either -- they were grandstanders. But IMHO their sympathies likely lie more with the terrorists.

 

truer words have never been spoken, but I think everyone in this thread has agreed that this flotilla was a PR stunt