₦airaland Forum

"Peace" activists prepare their weapons. Video is shot by people on board the ship. Video consfisticated by and released by the IDF

[flash=425,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

netotse:
@mariory
your videos will be ignored the same way all the others were. . .they have refused to see reason.

i believe israel was heavy handed(as usual), but the activitist got what was coming to them. . .how u go dey attack commandos? who your papa be?

That should never stop the truth. The truth is avaliable to me so I will spread it non the less. This next video is from onboard the ship. One passenger decribes how he wants to become a martyr. Video was consfisticated and released by the IDF

[flash=425,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAxAj2KIdU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSAxAj2KIdU

Some journalists are not happy that Israel is using footage captured by the press to show the truth about what happened.

JERUSALEM – Israel's military is using video confiscated from people on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla to justify opening fire during its deadly raid on the ships, drawing sharp criticism Thursday from foreign correspondents who say some of the footage was shot by journalists.

At least two videos posted to the army spokesperson's YouTube channel are labeled "captured" from the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship Israeli commandos stormed in a nighttime raid Monday that left nine people dead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Video of "peace" activists attacking Israeli personnel before they even come on board. I have not known "peace" activists to carry flash bangs before. Video was consfisticated from onboard press and released by IDF.

[flash=425,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

Goods from the flotilla being loaded unto trucks to be transferred by land after checks. Video from IDF

[flash=425,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrhQTiAJxM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrhQTiAJxM

I hope this isin't old news that I am posting here apologies if it has been posted before. A better video of the weapons brought by the "peace" activists. They were well prepared for violence. Video from IDF

[flash=425,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM&NR=1

Travelista:
Israel isn't a place but a people; you've been bamboozled into supporting a place that didn't exist until the 1940s.

I can understand people having different opinions on Israel. But, to make such a claim in the information age? What a shame. That is a truely shocking display of vast ignorance. Wow!

I'm sorry but, that doesn't look real. It looks like a nollywood film to me. The apparent "policeman" doesn't seem to be wearing a real police uniform either. he seems to be wearing shoes not boots. maybe it's just me.

LAGOS, Nigeria – A U.K. jury has convicted the sister of a former Nigerian governor on charges of money laundering and mortgage fraud.

Christine Ibori-Ibie, sister of politician James Ibori, was found guilty Tuesday of 12 charges stemming from allegations she helped her brother embezzle an estimated $101.5 million from Nigeria's Delta state into U.K. bank accounts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_af/af_nigeria_corruption;_ylt=Ao6HX9zTFWCgxNEFsffO9EK96Q8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJzM3I0ZXQ2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjAxL2FmX25pZ2VyaWFfY29ycnVwdGlvbgRwb3MDMjQEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDdWtqdXJ5bmlnZXJp


$105 million? Wow!

Well there you go Beaf. i told you this would not diplomatically affect Israel's relationships with it's important friends. The UN statement after debating through the night will be quite satisfactory for Israel. It doesn't even call for an international investigation.

Although they won't admit it, other member nations know this so called flotilla was a deliberate attempt to cause this crisis especially when they had been provided with an alternative method by Egypt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10201202.stm

Beaf:
I think you have hit the nail on the head! There are rules of engagement in armed conflict; response must be proportionate. Those were civilian boats and that is why there is such an outcry from World leaders and diplomats. Israel has really put its foot in it this time; I don't see an easy way out. Compensation will be paid in millions and massive concessions will be made on the political front. No two ways!

If the Israeli army had attacked fellow Israeli's with helicopter borne commando's, there would have been a strong outcry from the World, but it would have been tempered to an extent by the fact the it was an internal matter. However, attacking a multi-national aid flotilla in international waters is a totally different kettle of fish.

The Israeli's boarded with paintball guns and handguns. They clearly were not expecting a fight. however, they got one and escalated their response. It's now clear to me that the ship in question was carrying a number of Islamic hardliners who were intent on a fight.

All that said, you are right about this hurting Israel diplomatically but, I see that happening only with Turkey. I do not even think Jordan or Egypt will change their friendly relations with Israel. Definitely not the US or the EU. Definitely not Russia or China. And definitely not the AU if Israel at all gives a crap about the AU that is.

Massive concessions absolutely not. Compensation is also not going to happen. Turkey will make a lot of noise and that will be it. We go back to square one and wait for the next provocation/crisis.

One thing I can't get over is why is no one asking Egypt to open it's borders with Gaza. Afterall, Israel is not the only one that shares a border with Gaza. I don't blame the Israeli's for the siege mentality they sometimes have. They have trusted the world before and have been burned rather badly.

Beaf:
They were right to answer "negative", because they were in international waters. Israel does not own international waters, so it has committed quite a serious crime.

Err no Israel does not own international waters but, the ship in question had already very well publicised it's intended destination. Plus the ship was on a specific heading. Approaching a cordoned military zone and refusing to alter course and follow the instructions of the enforcing Navy means you are asking for military action.

In boarding the ship, Israel acted in accordance with principles guiding naval conflict so no crime there.

Beaf:
Jesus!
I did not quote a draft UN text; I quoted a news article from the BBC. The BBC reporter had been speaking to diplomats at the UN. Surely the link is there for you to click on?
The anti-semitic thing came from Tudor, not you. You and I have been civil to each other.

Ah I see. Apologies, my mistake.

Israeli navy signals the ship to let it know it is approaching a military zone and that it should follow instructions to land at Ashdod. The ship's response is apparently "Negative" "Negative"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6jDIQr59Sk&feature=related

Beaf:
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?

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

Dude you posted a quote from a draft text as the UN position on the matter to demonstrate that the UN agrees with you in condeming Israel (and therefore you are not anti-semetic). I was pointing out that draft texts do not represent the UN's position.

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?

https://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?

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?

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.'

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.

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.

Why can't they focus on the people who actually keep Lagos moving (like working class, emerging middle class). I hope they do this in a future documentary.

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.

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

Cohomology:
Why do you keep feeding the gullible with garbage pseudo-intellectual gibberish?

Firstly, the San Remo Manual is a manual on the applicability of international law to armed conflicts at sea. Ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters do not count as "armed conflict".

Secondly, you only point to Louise Doswald-Beck's summary of the San Remo Manual and not the actual contents of the manual. Deception? Well, let's see what the actual contents of the relevant section of Part 2 of the manual says:

SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION

36. Hostile actions on the high seas shall be conducted with due regard for the exercise by neutral States of rights of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the sea-bed, and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond national jurisdiction.

37. Belligerents shall take care to avoid damage to cables and pipelines laid on the sea-bed which do not exclusively serve the belligerents.

[size=18pt]The Mavi Marmara was "neutral" because it was Turkish (flying the Turkish flag) and Turkey is not currently involved in any armed conflict with Israel.
[/size]
It's sad that too many novices of international law come out here and feed gibberish to the unsuspecting readers on NL.

Israel's actions violated international laws, simple!

Stop trying to dig through articles you don't understand to justify the actions of Israel!

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. You claim deception? far from it. After all, i was the one that posted the full link.
Moving on, 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.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

nearest:
Israel should stop this we against the Arabs propaganda

You should understand that there is no such propaganda. Indeed Isreal's biggest enemy right now are not Arabs. It is of course Iran (Persian not Arab) I am refering to.

On a side note, there are reports that Egpyt offered to collect and tranfer the aid the ships were carrying in order to aviod this kind of confrontation but, the ships refused (I have been unable to verify this though).

Cohomology:
Nonsense! None of those applies in international waters, those laws only applies in waters within the territorial jurisdiction of controlling nations/powers. International waters remain free, unless controlled by identifiable powers during wartime.

Stop feeding the gullible with cheap lies.

Misguided to say the least.

Part 2 of the San Remo Manual clearly relates to the following locations.

Part II, "Regions of Operations", specifies the rules applicable to belligerents and neutrals in different areas of the sea: namely, internal waters, the territorial sea and archipelagic waters; international straits and archipelagic sea lanes; the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf; and, finally, the high seas and seabed beyond national jurisdiction.

Sagamite:
Please do not refer to IDF released information with such confidence. They are a bunch of Liars.

The same people that claimed they did not use Phosporous bombs in civilian areas before footage appeared.

It is simply a video feed. Weather we like it or not, we cannot deny what is happening on the footage. Unless you are trying to suggest the footage was somehow staged?

Sagamite:
I was scratching my head, wondering how a nation can justify, under international laws, the legitimacy to attack a ship it is aware the occupants are:

1) Unarmed

2) Not an immediate and/or uncontrolable threat to the nation

So I checked the link you provided. It says the following are exempted from attacks:

Especially vessels like this in INTERNATIONAL waters that have notified in advance of their intention, not acting stealthly.

Unfortunately the crew of this ship did not follow the protocol that would have made them exempt. They simply should not have refused. The following is the full print of the section that you posted. It lists when vessels are exempt and the conditions they must follow in order for them to be exempt.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.

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.

Again I can find no international maritime law that prohibits the Isrealis from boarding the ship in the first place.

More footage released by IDF (close up view apparently from a nearby Naval vessel).


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

Still no video feed rom those on board. None that I can find anyways.

edoyad:
@paddylo, do you know the life expectancy of many prisoners in the developed world is more than that of a lot of less developed countries ? I guess prisoners in Germany and Sweden are better off than i am then.

Actually they are because they have access to basic amenities tht you don't unless ofcourse you belong to the upper/upper middle class or the emerging middle class of Nigerian society. In which case, your life expectancy will probably be comparable to theirs.

Sagamite:
And that gives you the right to go to international waters and shoot them?

I will question whether that term "blockade" applies to Isreal's unjust blockade of Gaza.

Unjust as in being too tight and being used as collective punishment tool more than it is being used as protection from attacks.

Look fact is there was a Naval blockade and the ships set out to break that blockade. This was the mission of the ships themselves. Therefore the Isreali's have acted legally according to international law in boarding the ship in question.

Now as to what actaully happened that led to the deaths of those 9/10/16/19 (according to different news articles) people, no one actually knows the real story yet. No one even knows the identity of the deceased people yet.

Sagamite:
Sorry, what do you mean by on target?

International law requires you comply with Isreali laws and oppression in international waters?

What I meant by on target is that the point of the flotilla was to break a naval blockade.
--------------
As far as international law there is no need to be condesending. It is written for all to read.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

Sagamite:
I have always said Isreal of today is a STATE TERRORIST that thinks it can, and is used to, act(ing) with impunity.

They have no rights and no grounds to board a ship in international waters and shoot 10 people dead.

If the ship was in Isreali waters and they board and were attacked with soft weapons then they may have a little mouth.

But they attacked the ship in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, hence the occupants HAVE A RIGHT TO ATTACK them, albeit with inferior weapons.

They continue to let people in Gaza live under miserable conditions in a large prison.

Now they will come on TV and start speaking useless PR grammar.

THEY ATTACKED PEOPLE that were not militants on INTERNATIONAL WATERS and killed them. CRIME!

Incorrect. The ships were on target to break a blockade (this was well publicised by the mission itself). And as such, international law allows for the ship to be boarded.