Nairaland Forum

It does appear as though Isreal under estimated the amount of opposition they would meet on the ship. Aparently, Isreali trrops first came down with paintball guns and then escalated their response when that didn't work.

An account of the clash by an Israeli reporter on ynetnews said that the "navy commandos fell right into the hands of the Gaza mission members".

He wrote that the troops had "paintball" rifles which made no impression. They then used stun grenades. They were not expecting such opposition, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10199476.stm

The paintball guns are visible near the end of this video. just before the end of the video though, it appears one of the commandos swaps the paintball gun for a pistol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

I have a few simple questions;

[list]
[li]Is it normal for armies to storm aid flotilas?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, would commando's be the right branch of the army to storm civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Does Israel have a customs service that has boats?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, why were commandos dropped by helicopter, why weren't boats and loud hailers used (as is standard)?[/li]
[li]Were helicopters employed for maximum intimidation against harmless civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Why was the mission carried out at night?[/li]
[li]Why couldn't Israel simply wait for the boats to dock and then arrest everyone involved?[/li]
[li]If shooting 9 Aid volunteers is legal, can we expect machine guns, missiles and the full Israeli Airforce, if another team attempts to deliver aid?[/li]
[/list]

. . .Questions, questions, questions!


Act II Scene II - Airforce against aid and volunteers

Mariory:

I don't want this to get out of hand because I am not in the mood to trade insults. However, you should probably take your own advise on things you don't understand. The Ship was indeed neutral no one is disputing that. I don't know why you are getting so emotional over the fact that the ship is neutral. Anyways, I have already mentioned this before but, just for your benefit, see below.

I don't know whether to call this deception or ignorance. The San Remo Manual of 1994 was meant for armed conflict at sea.

Question is who is Israel having an armed sea conflict with?

Quoting excerpts of a manual without understanding the context and background is naive. The manual was developed to address the application of international laws during armed conflict. There rules in war (I know some may people may never understand this reality) and the San Remo Manual was developed to delineate those rules as they apply to armed conflict at sea.

Now, the spurious argument may be made that Israel was at armed sea conflict with Hamas, but that's easily debunked because:
1. There is no such armed sea conflict, except it exists only inside the top naval officers of the IDF
2. Hamas does not have any navy capable of any form of sea combat.

So, who was Israel in armed sea conflict with? Turkey?

It's a shame that some people will try to justify this nonsense with a manual that has no applicability in the situation.

"San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea"

1. Background

The law regulating the use of force at sea has long been due for a reevaluation in the light of developments in methods and means of warfare at sea and the fact that major changes have taken place in other branches of international law of direct relevance to this issue. This need was reflected in Resolution VII of the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, which noted that "some areas of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare are in need of reaffirmation and clarification on the basis of existing fundamental principles of international humanitarian law" and therefore appealed to "governments to co-ordinate their efforts in appropriate fora in order to review the necessity and the possibility of updating the relevant texts of international humanitarian law relating to sea warfare".

Although the law relating to land warfare has been reaffirmed in recent treaties, in particular the two Protocols of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, this has not been the case as regards the law of armed conflict at sea. The Second Geneva Convention of 1949 deals only with the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea, with some adjustments in Additional Protocol I of 1977, in particular the extension to shipwrecked civilians of the protection laid down in the Second Geneva Convention. However, these treaties do not address the law regulating the conduct of hostilities at sea. Almost all of the treaties on this subject date from 1907, when the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague adopted eight Conventions on the law of naval warfare. One of these has since been overtaken by the Second Geneva Convention and another, on the creation of an international prize court, never entered into force. A third, which regulated bombardment of land targets by naval forces, has in practice been overridden by the rules regulating attacks in Protocol I of 1977. However, these rules in Protocol I apply only to naval attacks that directly affect civilians on land, and therefore do not cover attacks by naval forces on objects, in particular vessels and aircraft, at sea. The 1907 treaties themselves did not represent a complete codification of the law of war at sea, but dealt with certain subjects, namely, the status of enemy merchant ships and their conversion into warships, the laying of automatic contact mines and the immunity of certain vessels from capture. An attempt to draft a more complete treaty took place in London in 1909, but the final Declaration did not enter into force. A non-binding code was drafted by the Institut de droit international and adopted in Oxford in 1913. Together, the 1909 London Declaration and the 1913 Oxford Manual give a good idea of pre-First World War customary law.

Events in the First World War showed that the Hague treaties and traditional customary law had begun to be overtaken by developments in methods and means of warfare. The use of submarines, in particular, which were unable to follow procedures required of surface ships, resulted in the torpedoing of merchant vessels in ways which were in violation of the accepted law of the time. Efforts were made, in particular by Great Britain in the 1920s, to outlaw submarines altogether but as this proposal was not accepted a treaty was adopted in 1936 specifying that submarines must abide by the same rules as warships. However, this attempt at regulating new methods of warfare did not solve the problem, which was exacerbated by the subsequent widespread use of aircraft, seamines and long-range missiles. This led to many arbitrary sinkings in the Second World War, including many hospital ships and Red Cross vessels carrying relief supplies.

The customary law that developed prior to the First World War had made an appropriate balance between military and humanitarian needs that suited naval practices and the sailing ships of the nineteenth century. As it is not possible to return to those times, the law needs to be adjusted so that the same balance can be respected with rules that are appropriate for modern conditions. Another major factor is that there have been important developments in other areas of international law such as the United Nations Charter, the law of the sea, air law and environmental law since the Second World War which must be taken into account in any restatement of the law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The development of the law of armed conflict on land is also of importance, in that all armed conflicts involve operations in which the land, air and sea forces work in close cooperation and it would therefore not be appropriate to have totally different standards. [/b]Furthermore, all aspects of armed conflict should be in conformity with the basic principles of international humanitarian law, wherever the theatre of operations might be. However, at the same time it is recognized that there are certain specificities of naval operations that need to be taken into account, in particular the fact that neutral interests are involved at sea to an infinitely greater extent than is the case with land operations.

[b]All these factors have led to a troubling degree of uncertainty as to the content of contemporary international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Although operations at sea are not at all as frequent as those on land, several recent conflicts have shown the need for greater certainty in the law applicable to naval warfare. The Falklands/Malvinas conflict brought the first major naval operation since the Second World War, and although it fortunately did not result in any serious problems as regards the safety of civilian or neutral shipping, it did raise significant questions with regard to the use of exclusion zones. Another problem which came to light was the negative effect on the efficiency of hospital ships of the rule in the Second Geneva Convention which prohibits hospital ships from using a secret code. The war between Iran and Iraq, on the other hand, saw extensive attacks on neutral civilian shipping as well as the use of exclusion zones by the belligerents. The downing of the Iranian airbus by the Vincennes forcefully brought to light the practical difficulties involved in the correct identification of civilian objects by belligerent naval forces and the unclear relationship between the work of civilian air traffic authorities and the perceived needs of belligerent forces in the area. The second Gulf war involved extensive naval activity when the Coalition forces established a blockade, without formally designating it as such.[1]Of particular interest were the methods used to enforce the blockade and the exceptions to it that were allowed for humanitarian reasons. The extent to which the United Nations Security Council was bound by the rules of international humanitarian law was also an important issue. Finally, it should be mentioned that the laying of seamines has created some difficulty. Such mines were laid in the Iran/Iraq war and some were removed by neutral States. In June 1995, a vessel chartered by the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide relief supplies to civilians in Sri Lanka was severely damaged and sank when it hit a seamine. The government of Sweden has on several occasions proposed a new treaty to the international community on the use of naval mines, first of all in 1989 at the United Nations Disarmament Commission, then in 1991 before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and now as an additional Protocol to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.[2] Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether this latest initiative will be successful as the Review Conference of the 1980 Convention, which will meet in September-October 1995, will concentrate on landmines and, to a lesser degree, laser weapons.

Beaf:

I have a few simple questions;

[list]
[li]Is it normal for armies to storm aid flotilas?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, would commando's be the right branch of the army to storm civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Does Israel have a customs service that has boats?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, why were commandos dropped by helicopter, why weren't boats and loud hailers used (as is standard)?[/li]
[li]Were helicopters employed for maximum intimidation against harmless civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Why was the mission carried out at night?[/li]
[li]Why couldn't Israel simply wait for the boats to dock and then arrest everyone involved?[/li]
[li]If shooting 9 Aid volunteers is legal, can we expect machine guns, missiles and the full Israeli Airforce, if another team attempts to deliver aid?[/li]
[/list]

. . .Questions, questions, questions!


Act II Scene II - Airforce against aid and volunteers

Good questions.

World reaction to Israel after raid on aid flotilla mostly negative
By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    * Egypt's Mubarak calls action "excessive and unjustified"
    * Turkey calls raid "a bloody stain on the history of humanity"
    * U.N. calls for Israel to end "counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza"
    * British Foreign Office seeking "urgent clarification"

(CNN) -- International leaders expressed shock and dismay Monday over the Israeli Navy's pre-dawn storming of a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza that resulted in nine deaths.

The situation rapidly escalated from a deadly incident at sea to a major diplomatic international crisis.

"I condemn the violence, and Israel must explain," said United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking in Uganda after the official opening of the International Criminal Court Review Conference.

In New York, the Security Council met in emergency session to discuss the matter.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the flotilla was trying to circumvent Israel's naval blockade of Gaza and defended its move as justified. "This happened after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israel navy that were issued prior to the action," it said in a posting on its website. "During the interception of the ships, the demonstrators on board attacked the IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs."

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/israel.gaza.raid.reaction/

Cohomology:

I don't know whether to call this deception or ignorance. The San Remo Manual of 1994 was meant for armed conflict at sea.

Question is who is Israel having an armed sea conflict with?

Quoting excerpts of a manual without understanding the context and background is naive. The manual was developed to address the application of international laws during armed conflict. There rules in war (I know some may people may never understand this reality) and the San Remo Manual was developed to delineate those rules as they apply to armed conflict at sea.

Now, the spurious argument may be made that Israel was at armed sea conflict with Hamas, but that's easily debunked because:
1. There is no such armed sea conflict, except it exists only inside the top naval officers of the IDF
2. Hamas does not have any navy capable of any form of sea combat.

So, who was Israel in armed sea conflict with? Turkey?

It's a shame that some people will try to justify this nonsense with a manual that has no applicability in the situation.

You should have left it at the bolded question. But you went on a condescending rant again trying to seem all knowledgeable and instead ended up looking clueless. The issue here is the destination of the ships which was Gaza. Gaza is currently under a land blockade by Isreal and Egypt, and under a sea blockade by Israel.

The fact that there is currently no actual sea combat or that Hamas currently has no navy capable of sea combat with Israel is irrelevant. The area is declared a military zone and no international ships are allowed to dock in Gaza ports. Ergo, the moment the ship made an intentional effort to break the blockade, Israel had a right to intercept it.

the IDF comandos did the right thing,
the silly aid workers has been too provocative,now they've got what they want
serves them right.

hbrednic:

the IDF comandos did the right thing,
the silly aid workers has been too provocative,now they've got what they want
serves them right.

Do you think the rest of the World is like Nigeria where life is cheap? . . .From Odi to Gbaramatu to Jos, from Benin-Lagos express way to stray bullets and a life expectancy of 49 years?
But then, you might not even understand what I'm talking about. Change your thinking style, it is primitive; There is a new Nigeria that is leaving the detritus of its recent shameful ways behind. Join it.

Beaf:

I have a few simple questions;

[list]
[li]Is it normal for armies to storm aid flotilas?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, would commando's be the right branch of the army to storm civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Does Israel have a customs service that has boats?[/li]
[li]If the answer to the above is yes, why were commandos dropped by helicopter, why weren't boats and loud hailers used (as is standard)?[/li]
[li]Were helicopters employed for maximum intimidation against harmless civilian aid ships?[/li]
[li]Why was the mission carried out at night?[/li]
[li]Why couldn't Israel simply wait for the boats to dock and then arrest everyone involved?[/li]
[li]If shooting 9 Aid volunteers is legal, can we expect machine guns, missiles and the full Israeli Airforce, if another team attempts to deliver aid?[/li]
[/list]

Let me try to answer these
1. If such aid ships remain neutral and do not engage in conflict then no it is not normal.
2. That would depend on the situation/military ability of the enforcing power.
3. No idea. This was too far out to sea anyways for a customs service to be involved.
4. See 3 above
5. It appears helicopters were employed to get the commandos onto the ships. (This appears logical in the military sense)
6. Again militarily the best option.
7. The boats were heading for Gaza ports. Israel currently has no military land presence in Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
8. Shooting anyone is not legal unless done within the rules of law(whatever that law may be). The real question here should be, Was the shooting of the nine activists legal? Now that is the real question.

One final piont on the last question. There were 6 ships in this flotilla. 5 complied with Israeli requests and there was no violence on board. The ship flying the Turkish flag refused to comply, ergo it got boarded in a tactical way. It is also important to note that there have been numerous aid ships in the past that have been escorted to Israeli ports and the aid goods they were carrying delivered by land after being checked without deadly violence.

None of my business!

I am just seeing this thread on Nairaland. Kudos to the IDF for doing what they needed to do to safeguard their country

Beaf:

Do you think the rest of the World is like Nigeria where life is cheap? . . .From Odi to Gbaramatu to Jos, from Benin-Lagos express way to stray bullets and a life expectancy of 49 years?
But then, you might not even understand what I'm talking about. Change your thinking style, it is primitive; There is a new Nigeria that is leaving the detritus of its recent shameful ways behind. Join it.

Sabi Sabi What has nigeria got to do with these   even if life expectancy is 10yrs its none of my business  
they so called aid workers left their country only to die like pigs in a foreign  land  
next time they wont be be fighting/beaten up an armed soldier.

People can analyse the issue as much as they want.
The fact remains that in this current climate in the middle east, israel is taking no chances.
so whether it humanitarian or even Oxfam, the israelis will intercept it and nip any potential
arms facilitation in the bud.

After all , when the rocket launchers start firing, the whole world will still be speaking grammar while the israelis are
tormented by demonic suicide idiots.

Anybody that resorts to determined effort to burst a blockade is looking for military trouble. One poster wrote in previous post that it is necessary to “call a spade a spade”. Is attempt to burst a blockade mounted by the Israeli navy with a flotilla not such a spade?

Where were the silly UN and inconsequential Egypt and Turkey when the so-called humanitarian flotilla was bent on bursting Israeli naval blockade of Gaza?

Israel has the right to defend her territories and citizens against external aggression from the neighbours in form of Suicide Bombers, Qassam rockets and even stones.

When rockets are being launched at Israel we would all sit in the comfort of our homes and blow big grammars when the people on the street of TelAviv, Beersheba and Haifa are being blown to pieces

While I do not condone the killing of innocent civilians, I do not think that the aid workers can be classified as such. The entire aid effort reeks of propaganda.
Note the following;

1. The aid convoy had been warned not to breach the blocade and alternatives had been provided for delivering the convoy's aid.
2. The convoy was warned repeatedly before being boarded and before any violence ensued.

If the aim was to provide humanitarian aid to Gazans, why not utilize the established channels and avoid confrontation?

Again, I beleive Israel "might" have overreacted but until we know what kind of resistance the crew of the vessel put up, an informed decision cannot be made.

Finally, knives, slingshots and sticks may not constitute deadly force but they can kill a man just as dead as guns can.

What a bunch of silly and outrightly daft questions

Beaf:

I have a few simple silly questions;


[li]Is it normal for armies to storm aid flotilas?[/li]

err, yes. . . .that usually happens wen u try to break a naval blockade on terrorists

[li]If the answer to the above is yes, would commando's be the right branch of the army to storm civilian aid ships?[/li]

It's a naval i.e MILITARY blockade to stem the supply of weapons to terrorist hamas. . . . . what'd u want them to send, the boy scouts?

[li]Does Israel have a customs service that has boats?[/li]

Do u know the function of a customs service at all?

[li]If the answer to the above is yes, why were commandos dropped by helicopter, why weren't boats and loud hailers used (as is standard)?[/li]

I guess videos of israeli ships issuing warnings to d vessels are missing from your TV?


besides, the israeli government have been hailing all week that the convoy wont be allowed to enter gaza and d convoy didnt listen, now u want them to sail on boats and hail some more? how daft

[li]Were helicopters employed for maximum intimidation against harmless civilian aid ships?[/li]

harmless civillian indeed. . . . thugs that attacked soldiers with sticks, chairs, n bludgeoning them to pulp with metal rods n u call them ''harmless''?

[li]Why was the mission carried out at night?[/li]

What is wrong with carrying out operations at night?

[li]Why couldn't Israel simply wait for the boats to dock and then arrest everyone involved?[/li]

Dock, where? is isreal in control of the docks at gaza?

the government offered to dock the ship in israel then pass off the aid to gaza if everything checks out security wise. . . . tell me, wat do so called ''peace activists''/''aid convoy'' have to fear or did they think d isreali government wants to steal d rice and beans on board d ship?

[li]If shooting 9 Aid volunteers is legal, can we expect machine guns, missiles and the full Israeli Airforce, if another team attempts to deliver aid?[/li]

? ? ? ? ? ?

My friend, just come out and say, I'm Anti-Semitic  nobody will kill you . . .instead of passing off your hate like afam does as pseudo ''intelligent'' critique

dayokanu:

Israel has the right to defend her territories and citizens against external aggression from the neighbours in form of Suicide Bombers, Qassam rockets and even stones.

When rockets are being launched at Israel we would all sit in the comfort of our homes and blow big grammars when the people on the street of TelAviv, Beersheba and Haifa are being blown to pieces

GBAM!

Didnt u see the iron rods and poles they were being hit with?
Didn't the Isreali soldiers also suffer casualties?
How were the casualties caused? By landing with one leg?

Abeg jo, let us call a spade a spade.
Those people were militants like dem Niger Delta militants.
The law of Self - Preservation is "Destroy them before they destroy you"'
They even waited to be injured.

All these biased storytelling.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words,
You can see the thousand words in this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1282989/Israeli-flotilla-raid-Deadly-clash-troops-plunge-sky.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O5N1Gh3tjo&feature=related

For the pranks who are condemning isreal for this retaliation you should read jerusalem post and know what realy happened the videos too are out there for you all to see ,isreal have every right to defend it's self and will forever remain strong

Interesting quote from that link you posted, blank.

However the Israeli Defence Force's version is supported by respected journalist and author Ron Ben Yishai, who accompanied the commandos on the raid. He claimed that most of them were armed only with paintball rifles.

In a report for an Israeli website, he wrote: 'Navy commandos slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred. The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were seized one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

'However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests.

'The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating up the troops and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

'One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandos were equipped with handguns but were told they should use them only in the face of life-threatening situations.

'When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other "don't shoot, don't shoot", even though they sustained-numerous blows. The forces hurled stun grenades yet the rioters on the top deck kept on beating up the commandos.

At one point, the attackers held one commando, wrested away his handgun and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck 30ft below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost consciousness.

'Only after this injury did troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: "You can go ahead and fire". The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters' legs, a move that ultimately neutralised them.'

Tudór:

. . .
My friend, just come out and say, I'm Anti-Semitic  nobody will kill you . . .instead of passing off your hate like afam does as pseudo ''intelligent'' critique

. . .The "crowning glory" of foolish statement after foolish statement.

The text below provides an informed feeler on the opinion of United Nations diplomats and "Anti-Semitic" experts;

BBC's Barbara Plett reports from the UN headquarters.

Diplomats say the draft text condemns the Israeli raid, requests immediate release of the impounded ships, and calls for an international investigation, our correspondent says.

Washington will face pressure to join the international condemnation of Israel, she adds.

There have been demonstrations against the Israeli operation in cities around the world and several countries summoned their Israeli ambassadors demanding an explanation for the violence. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10200351.stm

Iran has a strong reason to protect itself, ,

nakedall:

Iran has a strong reason to protect itself, ,

Israel, modify ur post

@Tudor

"But, the current situation falls far short of what is necessary for the population to lead normal and dignified lives," she said. "Today, I am also registering my shock at reports that humanitarian aid was met with violence early this morning reportedly causing death and injury as the boat convoy approached the Gaza coast."

-The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay

Of course, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights is an Anti-Semite in your books too. Daft.

Here is a footage of what really happened

[flash=425,344]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&hl=en_US&fs=1[/flash]



---First, the ship tried to breach a blockade despite warnings
---How else would they board a ship like that? Unarmed? The police has guns too.
---You would shoot too to protect yourself if you got stabbed by a knife in the back, or if a friendly soldier was lying down being beaten by a mob with iron rods
- The ship's mission was only political. Israel offered to make sure the aid would be sent if they accepted to port in Haifa, but they refused because that wouldn't make a good show for the world. Besides, Egypt has a tight blockade on its border to Gaza too.

Beaf:

The text below provides an informed feeler on the opinion of United Nations diplomats and "Anti-Semitic" experts;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10200351.stm

A draft text is not a resolution. A draft text hasn't even been debated upon. The daft was probably written by Turkey. What do you think a draft text written by Israel would say? You see my point?

Beaf:

@Tudor

Of course, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights is an Anti-Semite in your books too. Daft.

slowpoke, where did the UN high commissioner ask daft questions like the thrash u posted?

ask smart questions, and if you're mentally challenged no one would take offense but it becomes a problem wen u try to pass off ur stupidity as intelligence.

look at them agberos

peace activits. . . . . .yes indeed

Mariory:

A draft text is not a resolution. A draft text hasn't even been debated upon. The daft was probably written by Turkey. What do you think a draft text written by Israel would say? You see my point?

I never said the UN was passing a resolution.

Turkey or Israel write a draft statement for the UN Security Council? What are you talking about?
I like to believe we have an understanding of how the UN deals with issues. Do you realise that the UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting as we speak?

But analysts warned that the assault by the naval Shayetet 13 commando unit was likely to carry a significant political price. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said he was "shocked" by the killings, stressing that the boats had been in international waters.

The UN Security Council was in emergency session last night seeking to agree a formal statement.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9117a738-6d15-11df-921a-00144feab49a.html

Hmmm.

lol the truth is slowly but, surely sipping out.

In this video, the flotilla "peace activists" prepare for martyrdom. What kind of "peace activist" is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

In this video from Al-Jazeera, before departing for Gaza, activists on board the ship chant intifada songs and praise martyrdom. What kind of "peace activist" is that?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2489.htm

What kind of "peace activists" are these people?