Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[CJvR]

To seriously say they have any chance of defeat against a navy which can't even remember to turn its own radars on, is utterly hilarious.

Yeah, but then the Navy is the only Turkish military branch that is superior to the IDF. Hardly surprising since the Israeli navy is below army shoe polish in priority. Unfortunately for the Turks it wont be an exclusively naval affair.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To seriously say they have any chance of defeat against a navy which can't even remember to turn its own radars on, is utterly hilarious.

Yeah, but then the Navy is the only Turkish military branch that is superior to the IDF. Hardly surprising since the Israeli navy is below army shoe polish in priority. Unfortunately for the Turks it wont be an exclusively naval affair.

Certainly the IAF is the real striking power of the Israeli State and presents a real threat to any navy without carrier-based air support. But any realistic prospect for a war drawing in Turkey will require them to at least divert some of their strength to blow up all the meatbag joke air forces of the surrounding Arab states. Except for the fact there's no realistic way for this to happen. The Israelis cannot be apopletically stupid enough to actually fire on the Turkish Navy, save by some kind of grotesque accident due to the incompetence of their Navy.

[Elfdart]

It's worse than that. The ships were in fact inspected in Turkish ports.

As anal retentive as Turkish customs officials are, that pretty well settles it. Not that I doubted for a minute that Israel is using hunger as a way of terrorizing civilians in Gaza. Both government officials and their cheerleaders have talked openly about putting Gaza "on a diet" since at least 2003.

One of the things Richard Goldstone mentioned in his report is the way the IDF and IAF went out of their way to destroy flour mills and chicken farms in Gaza during the massacre. This is just more of the same.

[FSTargetDrone]

I don't want to get into too much of a tangent, but since various hypotheticals have been raised about tactics and possible outcomes, what is this about the Israelis not turning on naval radars?

[MKSheppard]

I'm serious here. INS HANIT was hit...because...well...

As a result of the incident, two navy officers, two junior officers and the commander of the ship have been formally reprimanded and repositioned to non-commanding positions on land. One of the junior officers had shut down the central radar and parts of the defence system without notifying the commander, in the belief that the ship was not under threat.[8]

[Edward Yee]

Sadly when I saw this topic about the recent incident the first thing I thought of wasn't the right or wrong, but rather Stuart's comment on the USS Liberty... that he would have understood (and maybe forgiven) an intentional attack, as opposed to plain ol' fucking up and lack of proper planning. *facepalm... with cringing due to casualties*

re: INS Hanit - forget about why he didn't tell his commander, why did that junior officer in turn then decide that "we're not under threat" should lead to turning off parts of the defense system(s) and central radar??

[Illuminatus Primus]

The U.S. will not like Bibi shit all over the collective defense agreements of NATO. Israel will submit to the Master if it comes to that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

re: INS Hanit - forget about why he didn't tell his commander, why did that junior officer in turn then decide that "we're not under threat" should lead to turning off parts of the defense system(s) and central radar??

Presumably he'd taken the entire ship's rations of stupid pills that morning?


I can't imagine that would have caused someone to do that, except perhaps the same kind of thinking that, pre-RMS Titanic, led to ship's wireless sets being switched off at night: no reason to have it on if it won't be used?

[Quetzalcoatl]

As far as I know, Israel hasn't actually claimed that the convoy attempted to smuggle firearms or ordinance.
The IDF's propaganda channel on youtube released a video which notes that improvised weapons were discovered. (Gasmaks, molotov cocktails, 'sharp sticks', etc.) Its clear from the video that at least some portion of the boat's passengers attacked the commandos (under what circumstances, we are unsure), so the rudimentary nature of the weapons seems to make sense. I'm inclined to believe these are authentic.

Still, a couple of pointy sticks =/= gun-running.



It remains to be seen whether 'real' weapons were aboard. It doesn't seem very likely. Even if a cache is discovered, it will be claimed that it was a plant by the Israelis.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Israeli navy challenges; gets several ships sunk, for one turkish ship damaged -- and the IAF has to sink the remainder of the convoy -- since they seem to be the most professional of the Israeli branches; and we know that the Israeli Navy has a proclivity for turning off ship self defense features like ECM, CIWS, etc for no damn reason (this is why INS Hanit was hit).

Good, I'll laugh as American B-52s bomb Tal Aviv so far back they can recreate the writing of the Tanakh.

Unless you suggest America not act against an attack on a NATO ally and watch our hegemony vanish overnight.

[mingo]

I'd just like to see the US stop backing up Israel when they do provocative shit like this. And I think given the current state of US Israeli relations, they may indeed have to eat this one.

[Edward Yee]

Presumably he'd taken the entire ship's rations of stupid pills that morning?


I can't imagine that would have caused someone to do that, except perhaps the same kind of thinking that, pre-RMS Titanic, led to ship's wireless sets being switched off at night: no reason to have it on if it won't be used?

It's one of those things that comes off as weird to me since they're not like us "regular people" who have usage-based electric bills to pay... right?

Quetzlcoatl, doesn't the whole "improvised weapon" thing turn out a win-win for the blockade runners PR-wise?

Schatten, I think MKSheppard was just plain being cynical/sarcastic about the IDF's actual capability...

[MKSheppard]

There is actually precedent for skirmishes between NATO members in the alliance itself, specifically two founding members - Iceland/Britain.

The Cod Wars

[CJvR]

There is actually precedent for skirmishes between NATO members in the alliance itself, specifically two founding members - Iceland/Britain.

And the Falklands war.

[Elfdart]

There is actually precedent for skirmishes between NATO members in the alliance itself, specifically two founding members - Iceland/Britain.

And the Falklands war.

Since when is Argentina a member of NATO?

Cod wars?

[Sea Skimmer]

There is actually precedent for skirmishes between NATO members in the alliance itself, specifically two founding members - Iceland/Britain.

And the Falklands war.

That doesn't count. You see prior to September 11th 2001 the NATO alliance only covered specific geographic areas. The southern Atlantic facing limit was the Tropic of Cancer. This is also why the US was not able to bring NATO into Korea or Nam or the Gulf. It was a big deal when NATO voted to expand the limits, so that Afghanistan could be a NATO operation.

However it is worth noting that Greece and Turkey themselves have fought several times, and Turkey was all but suspended from NATO for years after its invasion of Cyprus. But in those cases we still had the USSR around to keep people together. Frankly the whole US-Turkey alliance was pretty bad for most of the Cold War, because the Turks were always pissed that the US withdrew its Thor nuclear missiles without replacement by any other US forces, more or less leaving them wide open to Soviet attack with no tripwire force. Not at gunpoint relations are better since the end of the cold war then they were during it now.

But frankly its absurd to think this will turn into a shooting war. Absurd things do happen... but someone will almost surely blink first and we can be sure as shit that no one in Europe wants to pay one extra cent for war right now. Most of them are looking to cut military spending as we speak including the Greeks who are already doing so.

[MKSheppard]

Cod wars?

Iceland and Britain were founding members of NATO, but that didn't stop the UK from deploying 22 frigates to harass and screw with Icelandic fishing trawlers during the Cod Wars.

If the Turks decide to escort the next convoy; we'll likely see a return of high seas rammings that we haven't seen since the USSR collapsed.


View from US destroyer Caron at the moment of ramming by Soviet light frigate (FFL 824) on February 12, 1988

[wautd]

Brutal? Sure. But it gets the job done. As you might have guessed, I am a throwback to the good old days where nearly unlimited force was used to force ends to conflicts, rather than letting them drag on for 50+ years as this particular one has.

You'd have started a war with Turkey.

Just Turkey? There were like 40 nationalities on board. Given the fallout we get from 9 deaths, I cannot begin to image what firing torpedoes at 600 civilians would have caused. I guess the world is relieved our armchair admiral wasn't in charge.

Bwahahaha! You really tell me you can't honestly see how opening fire with high caliber weapons is overkill when facing civilians armed with blunt weapons?

It's so sad people completely missed a point that Stuart was trying to make in the middle chapters of Pantheocide -- that even primitive weapons can cause permanent damage in a surprisingly short amount of time. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I came up and beat you over the head with an aluminum pipe repeatedly.

So because of a few bad apples with metal pipes you indiscriminately sink the whole ship. But hey, if you have to choose between a few sailors who shouldn't have been there in the first place or a full blown war, the choice is easy right?

In any case, the food and medicine argument is a pretty disingenous argument, considering that Israel already does let that go through the truck crossings they control --

Which is what? 25% of what is actually needed? Speaking of which, is that truck convoi still standing in the Egyptian desert for some obscure reason? Must do wonders on the foods shelf life.

[Oskuro]

It's so sad people completely missed a point that Stuart was trying to make in the middle chapters of Pantheocide -- that even primitive weapons can cause permanent damage in a surprisingly short amount of time. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I came up and beat you over the head with an aluminum pipe repeatedly.

Don't be a moron. Blunt weapons are dangerous, but raking the deck with high claiber machinegun fire as you suggested in your ITG post is a way disproportionate response. I don't fault soldiers for opening fire to defend themselves from a potentially lethal situation, but claiming that they should anihilate the whole ship just in case is moronic to the extreme. What's next? Nuke them from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.

Because it's the only option open to them?

You answered yourself. They could've cleared the landing zone with gas and they could've dropped en masse. They could've also tried to drop from the helo and board from the patrol boats at once, reducing the chance of swarming. I'm no military expert, obviously, but a single guy dropping in the midst of a hostile crowd doesn't seem like a sound tactical decision to me.


Now, back to the topic, I just love how the press latches on to this incident and gives it whatever spin they want. I mean, it is obvious that the crew of the ship resisted violently. But the paper I was reading in the train this morning kept saying they were pacificsts and did nothing at all to deserve retaliation.
Of course, the Israeli embassy is now claiming that people on the boats had ties to Al-Qaeda.
Yeah, I'm pretty much sore from all the facepalming.

[MKSheppard]

So because of a few bad apples with metal pipes you indiscriminately sink the whole ship. But hey, if you have to choose between a few sailors who shouldn't have been there in the first place or a full blown war, the choice is easy right?

Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.

You'll also note that my solution to the North Korean crisis is to simply sink the entire North Korean Navy at anchor and destroy every naval base they have with massed carpet bombing. Then sit back and dare them to escalate even further....which they won't if they want to live.

[Starglider]

Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.

The whole point of having an escalation ladder is that the vast majority of the time, you never get past the first couple of steps, because every step is an independent opportunity for both sides to reconsider and back off (and for third parties to get involved). Jumping up the ladder forces everyone involved into panic mode, militaries take over and rush politicians into authorising strikes, everything goes to hell before anyone can intervene. The only value of disproportionate response is acting as a deterrent to prevent even the first rung of the ladder being reached. This does not work in the general case, as it removes all policy flexibility and can't handle non-rational / non-state actors. Maybe 4 out of 5 random crises could be deterred but the fifth one would trigger a general war. In short it would cause massively more wars and more casualities. Massive retaliation worked for nuclear weapons only because of the extreme security controls over nuclear weapons release and the psychological demarkation between nuclear and conventional warfare.

Then sit back and dare them to escalate even further....which they won't if they want to live.

Of course they would, because the leadership won't be able to conceive of you doing that and then stopping there, plus failing to retaliate would make the regieme look so weak as to be an existential threat anyway.

[Stark]

In Shep's world butching civilians and ensuring a violent response is saving lives.

By 'lives' he means 'Israeli hegemony'.

But hey guys on ships being boarded in international waters fought back... if it happened off the Somali coast he'd be saying they were heroes.

[wautd]

So because of a few bad apples with metal pipes you indiscriminately sink the whole ship. But hey, if you have to choose between a few sailors who shouldn't have been there in the first place or a full blown war, the choice is easy right?

Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.

Why do you put emphasis on "civlilians"? Do you honestly think the majority were Taliban-like barbarians? Looking at some of my fellow countrymen who were on the flotilla, they might be able to do some nasty scratches against Israeli commandos, but using cruise missiles against them might be a bit redundant. I'm flabbergasted Isreal got the nerve to put them in prison, as if everyone wasn't pissed off enough already.

[MKSheppard]

In Shep's world butching civilians and ensuring a violent response is saving lives.

By 'lives' he means 'Israeli hegemony'.

Eventually, the various methods being used to render the Israeli/Egyptian Blockade (bet you didn't know about the Egyptians being involved too); politically untenable; such as this convoy; will succeed if current trends continue the way they are.

This will mean that HAMASstan will have all the supplies it can get to build rockets which can strike southern Israel -- fun fact, in the aid that Israel lets through -- tin cans are banned; as is food packaged in tin cans -- because HAMAS will simply use the metal in them to build rockets with which to threaten Israel.

Fast forward a couple years, and CAST LEAD II kicks off after some nice rocket attacks on Israeli towns -- something a mere 50% bloodier than CAST LEAD would be 1,800 palestinian deaths of all types (Civilian and HAMAS); and 7,500 wounded of all types.

So yes, killing a couple dozen to a hundred people in escalation is worth it.

But hey guys on ships being boarded in international waters fought back... if it happened off the Somali coast he'd be saying they were heroes.

I like how Israeli troopers carrying out board/search/seizure operations under a national flag on ships trying to run a declared blockade is somehow equivalent to a bunch of pirates attacking shipping at random off the Horn of Africa.

[Stark]

Sorry, I thought you were talking in generalities and not your hobby horse, my mistake. Can we all invent baseless numbers or is that just a Shep thing? I predict in 2 weeks all Palestinians will be murdered in gunship attacks.

And yeah, people boarding ships is pretty much the same; indeed, it's inconcievable that they could take Israeli ships boarding them in any other way, especially since they killed a bunch of people in international waters.

Damn, it must be great to be Israel and be able to do pretty much whatever you want and have simpletons obsessed with Curtis Le May defend you. Remember kids killing civilians to escalate a conflict is actually SAVING lives, because... something something something something.

What this thread needs is more tough-guy posturing combined with hilarious 'this is how it'll go guys I'm on the internet' crystal ball gazing. Let's justify murdering civilians some more, I love this stuff.