Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Coyote]

BTW, just as an aside, with regards to Israeli "killing brown people" it is worth remembering that Israel itself is about 52% "brown people".

[Vendetta]

So instead of the poorly considered action being a mistake ...

It's all the fault of those unarmed humanitarians who died under Israeli attack! Israel needs to kill MORE BROWN PEOPLE.

You're so fucking stupid I can't stop laughing. Is the best part you backwards attitude or your fellating your own 'strategic analysis'? Too close to call!

I think the best thing is when he runs out of arguments and posts pictures of artillery pieces.\

Gotta get it hard somehow, y'know.

[Axiomatic]

Doesn't Israel forbid bringing cement into Gaza, thus making cement a contraband?

[Samuel]

Doesn't Israel forbid bringing cement into Gaza, thus making cement a contraband?

Yes, that has been previously mentioned.

[Stark]

BTW, just as an aside, with regards to Israeli "killing brown people" it is worth remembering that Israel itself is about 52% "brown people".

That's why it's so insidious! These guys WANTED Israel to foolishly kill them so EGYPT blah blah .... Lol

[NecronLord]

Characteristic for poor populations NOT under blockade.

Provide full research from a credible source demonstrating that populations under blockade somehow practice efficient birth control. Now.

I know, but don't forget that i have also provided many, more or less corelated characteristics of Gaza population in the set. Like infant mortality rate, which is very correlative with starvation and malnutrition. How about that?

Is it? I would expect it's more strongly correlative with sanitation, which is more poorly understood in many of the worse nations (hello, India, most of Africa, I'm looking at you) and indeed, Turkey (which in the last couple of decades had a 'toilet in every village' programme), despite the obvious problems (say, denial of water) from Israelis. And the actual position in the world isn't that impressive - yes, it's better than some other places. You're also talking about what you call the world's largest recipient of aid money.

No, must be conspiracy.

Your extraordinary claim (Western NGOs deliberately give supplies to keep Hamas in power) requires extraordinary proof.

They at least don't care if they help to keep Hamas in power. At least those NGO's supporting running the Israeli blockade.

In short, no extraordinary proof that this constituted a tribute.

As for 'not caring' why the fuck should they care?

[MKSheppard]

Some humor in this thread courtesy of information dissemination:

[Elfdart]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone?

Yep.

[Stark]

Some humor in this thread courtesy of information dissemination:

Hilariously you can't stop doing it! Can you say 'the news'? Of course not, journalists are bad!

Elfdart, it's probable that even if they did exactly what they did inside Israeli waters there'd be way less people giving a shit. Given that their navy is apparently famously incompetent, I wouldn't be surprised if these guys just didn't know what they were doing.

[MKSheppard]

Hilariously you can't stop doing it! Can you say 'the news'? Of course not, journalists are bad!

My god, you are dumb.

Information Dissemination is a Naval/Maritime centric blog

[Vendetta]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone?

Yep.

The first alternative is to communicate the intent to board and search for contraband in accordance with a legally carried out blockade, and to do so peacefully (as in not with an armed goon squad using commando boarding tactics).

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Those poor starving Palestinians" is just stupid leftist and islamic propaganda against Israel.
Some photos from Gaza:
http://undhimmi.com/2010/05/31/gaza-do- ... -flotilla/

First of all, how do we know all of those photos are from Gaza? And even if they are, they still don't prove a god-damned thing. There are about 1.6 million people in Gaza, about 33% of whom live in United Nations refugee camps. Do those fruit stands in Gaza City look like enough to feed 1.6 million people? Or, hey, the fancy restaurant, Roots, they show a picture of, is "a favoured haunt for middle-class couples and their children eager to escape from the relentless pressures of life in the Strip" according to the BBC. So their are people with enough money to afford a meal at a restaurant ... so? Even Somalia has a middle-class.

Of course a few photos are not enough, so let's compare some hard data (from CIA World Factbook). We will take the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and 2 of Israel's neighbours, both arab ruled and not starving. Let's say Egypt and Lebanon:

First of all, none of the data sets you provided are conclusive about anything (hell, Niger has the highest population growth rate in 2010, does that mean it is the richest or most well off?). Hell, the same Factbook also says the following things about Gaza:

-The median age is 17.5 years. Which, with Uganda, puts it at the bottom of the pile. Countries like, say, Japan or most of Europe are at around 40.

-40% unemployment. Only 12 countries with worse unemployment. Hell, Afghanistan has a lower unemployment rate (35%).

-70% of population below the poverty line

-Electricity production is the lowest in the world, except for the Northern Mariana Islands (in fact, it is about .0004% that of Israel to compare).

-The CIA had to pool their Gaza Strip and West Bank data together for much of their economic indicators. What do you think that means?

So, i have shown some data that would have been visibly affected by widespread starvation (especially the infant mortality), and yet, there is no entry where Gaza has the worst blace, and it has the best one in many.

The same source you used also showed how desperately poor and underdeveloped the Gaza Strip is. And, if that's not enough, how about The Economist's Pocket World in Figures? The Economist is a notoriously conservative source, and often a supporter of Israel, so you can't claim any left-wing bias. Just from briefly skimming the 254 page booklet I find the following gems:

-West Bank and Gaza have the lowest % of their populations in the labor force of any country
-They disagree with the CIA, and rank them as having the worst unemployment in the world except for Macedonia, Namibia, and South Africa.
-Lowest annual agricultural growth of any country (-4%)

[Stark]

Information dissemination is also the spread of ideas and information, and you used this term in context with no capital letters.

So are you illiterate, or stupid? Can it be both?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Supplies delivered would be acquired by the Hamas government, which of course would give priority over them for it's armed forces. Diesel fuel? War material.

Remember the website you linked to earlier?

Even that site, which seems to hate Palestinians even more than you do, acknowledges that diesel fuel is not contraband. In fact, it uses the figure of "10,209 liters of heavy duty diesel fuel" being delivered to Gaza was allowed by the Israelis. You can't even stay consistent, can you?

[Sephirius]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone?

Yep.

The first alternative is to communicate the intent to board and search for contraband in accordance with a legally carried out blockade, and to do so peacefully (as in not with an armed goon squad using commando boarding tactics).

I was under the impression that this was done first, and the 'blockade runners' (for lack of a better term) basically ignored it, as it was night time and wanted to force a daylight showdown for the coverage it would get along with the huge disadvantage it would present to the Israeli forces.

[Stark]

Based on what?

[CBG]

Guess they have pittyfully sparse agriculture too.

Yeah, right - because you can totally compare a culture using modern agriculture and one who doesn't

West Bank:
agriculture: 12%
industry: 23%
services: 65% (June 2008)
Libya:
agriculture: 17%
industry: 23%
services: 59% (2004 est.)

Are these still too different?

I didn't argue that they (at least majority of them) don't live in poverty. But the most loyal supporters of Hamas certainly do not, and certainly Hamas will ensure that they have the first priority for any aid Gaza might get.

And that justifies starving the rest of the people?

Wow, you really are a ruthless immoral evil asshole.

Some large charities at least try (with more or less success) to distribute aid without Hamas deciding who gets what.
These guys were happy with handing all their stuff to Hamas.

And still doesn't qualify them as civilians. Civilians don't fight armed forces. Combatants do. Lawful combatants wear uniforms. So who the hell are these guys?
A blockade is an act of war, no matter if it is legal or not.

Bollocks.
Just because i fight someone doesn't make me not a civilian.
Say - if an woman resists a soldier taking away her baby, does that mean she is also an "unlawfull combatant" too?

Go read up the actual definition.

That's not the case here.
Here, we have people attacking soldiers with melee weapons, taking away their weapons, and shooting them at another soldiers.
If you shoot at soldiers, are you a civilian, or a combatant? Would you go as far as to suggest that someone could possibly shoot at uniformed soldiers and still be considered a civilian non combatant, and be granted all the rights of such one?

The convoy publicly announced it's cargo.
Let's see what contraband is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband

Hey, jackass, look at what you yourself cited.

The former category includes arms, munitions, and various materials, such as chemicals and certain types of machinery that may be used directly to wage war or be converted into instruments of war.

This is what allows seizing it.
It was not on board.

Then, what was?

Either way, they would have to search for it first. They did not. That automatically violates international law.
Not that Israel ever gave a shit about that.

How could they search for it, if the ship refused to go to an Israeli port, and the navy team got attacked before it even touched the ship's board.

[Vendetta]

I was under the impression that this was done first, and the 'blockade runners' (for lack of a better term) basically ignored it, as it was night time and wanted to force a daylight showdown for the coverage it would get along with the huge disadvantage it would present to the Israeli forces.

If Duchess' report is correct they were actually told to submit to seizure and be diverted to an Israeli port, not to board and search and be allowed onwards if there was no contraband found.

If the Israeli communication was already stating that the intent of boarding was hostile, then it is no wonder there was a hostile response.

[Elfdart]

"Those poor starving Palestinians" is just stupid leftist and islamic propaganda against Israel.
Some photos from Gaza:
http://undhimmi.com/2010/05/31/gaza-do- ... -flotilla/

You cite as a credible source an openly racist, bigoted website that pimps books like The Manchurian President?

Fuck you, asshole.

[MagnusTheReD]

I was under the impression that this was done first, and the 'blockade runners' (for lack of a better term) basically ignored it, as it was night time and wanted to force a daylight showdown for the coverage it would get along with the huge disadvantage it would present to the Israeli forces.

If Duchess' report is correct they were actually told to submit to seizure and be diverted to an Israeli port, not to board and search and be allowed onwards if there was no contraband found.

If the Israeli communication was already stating that the intent of boarding was hostile, then it is no wonder there was a hostile response.

I'm gonna repeat my query as to why blockade runners have to be confirmed for carrying contraband before they can be seized?

Because according to the San Remo Manual (here):

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;

If I understand this paragraph correctly, trying to run a blockade is sufficient grounds for boarding and seizure.
And here's a recording of communications between ships, where Marmara was warned about the blockade, and declared that they're proceeding irregardless.

[Elfdart]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone?

Yep.

The first alternative is to communicate the intent to board and search for contraband in accordance with a legally carried out blockade, and to do so peacefully (as in not with an armed goon squad using commando boarding tactics).

If Israel was concerned with war contraband (they aren't, they just want to starve Gaza), they would have asked to have their reps or a third party's reps (like the US) be present when the Turkish government inspected the ships. Instead, they sought to seize the ships and their cargoes and to do so in a way that would scare off others. EPIC FAIL! as the kids say nowadays.

By the way, the Israelis killed those passengers to prevent this dangerous materiel from reaching Hamas:



According to the IDF, this version of Pikachu shouts "Allahu Akbar" instead of "Pika Pika"! Mossad reports that Dora the Explorer is armed and dangerous and might be on the next relief ships. Apparently her monkey sidekick keeps plastic explosive in his red boots...

[Serafina]

Are these still too different?

Oooh, Libya.
Hey, you just shot yourself in the food - if they have a lower agricultural employment rate as Libya, (with no modern technology) then they are quite bad off, don't you think?

Some large charities at least try (with more or less success) to distribute aid without Hamas deciding who gets what.
These guys were happy with handing all their stuff to Hamas.

So what?
Honestly, so what? They are giving people food? Oh no, eeevil.
Defeating your enemy by means of starvation is, by the way, a crime against humanity.

That's not the case here.
Here, we have people attacking soldiers with melee weapons, taking away their weapons, and shooting them at another soldiers.
If you shoot at soldiers, are you a civilian, or a combatant? Would you go as far as to suggest that someone could possibly shoot at uniformed soldiers and still be considered a civilian non combatant, and be granted all the rights of such one?

Yes. Resisting unlawfull actions leaves you a civilian.
Look, it's quite simple:
You are a soldier if you employ a proper uniform, command structure and serve in a nations military.
Not the case here.
You are a irregular if you discard some of the above, but still fight in times of war.
Not the case here.
You are an unlawfull combatant if you are a civilian who fights in violation of international law.
Again, not the case here - no international law was violated.

So YES, they WERE civilians.

[CBG]

Are these still too different?

Oooh, Libya.
Hey, you just shot yourself in the food - if they have a lower agricultural employment rate as Libya, (with no modern technology) then they are quite bad off, don't you think?

Maybye they have a bit more technology? And the diff here is just 5%.
And West Bank: No blockade, the same agricultural employment rate.

Some large charities at least try (with more or less success) to distribute aid without Hamas deciding who gets what.
These guys were happy with handing all their stuff to Hamas.

So what?
Honestly, so what? They are giving people food? Oh no, eeevil.
Defeating your enemy by means of starvation is, by the way, a crime against humanity.

Yeah, giving people food - but not any people, and not exactly giving for free.
My proposition is that ALL food aid should be controlled by UN or some other entity with no real interest in supporting Hamas, some accountability, and a chance of resisting Hamas' goons.

That's not the case here.
Here, we have people attacking soldiers with melee weapons, taking away their weapons, and shooting them at another soldiers.
If you shoot at soldiers, are you a civilian, or a combatant? Would you go as far as to suggest that someone could possibly shoot at uniformed soldiers and still be considered a civilian non combatant, and be granted all the rights of such one?

Yes. Resisting unlawfull actions leaves you a civilian.
Look, it's quite simple:
You are a soldier if you employ a proper uniform, command structure and serve in a nations military.
Not the case here.
You are a irregular if you discard some of the above, but still fight in times of war.
Not the case here.
You are an unlawfull combatant if you are a civilian who fights in violation of international law.
Again, not the case here - no international law was violated.

So YES, they WERE civilians.

So it all goes back to the question if the action was legal.
And the international law about which we are talking here is the law of war.
The definition of combatant is someone, who takes a direct part in hostilities of an armed conflict. These guys were running a blockade, and shooting at a boarding party. Check.
The arguable part is if they are unlawful combatants.
Non-combatants are civilians not engaged in combat. These guys obviously don't fall under this category. They were engaged in combat.
Looks like being a civilian and being a combatant aren't mutually exclusive by definition.
However, they can't be described as non-combatants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant
So, they have to be called some sort of civilian combatants.

[MagnusTheReD]

Instead, they sought to seize the ships and their cargoes and to do so in a way that would scare off others.

Are you saying that it was the Israeli side that initiated the hostilities?
I heard some rumors that Marmara was fire upon before the troops started the boarding, but I never saw any evidence to that extent.

Besides, if you wanna do it "in a way that would scare off others", you don't go to that kind of operation armed with a paintball gun as your primary...

By the way, the Israelis killed those passengers to prevent this dangerous materiel from reaching Hamas:

And this video shows said cargo being loaded on trucks and sent to Gaza.

Israel promised to transfer those supplies to Gaza via the land crossings from the very beginning, and again, when the ships began their approach, they were promised that if they willfully enter the Ashdod port, they would be allowed to unload their cargo, see it reaching Gaza, and leave with their ships, and all activists aboard.

Resisting unlawfull actions leaves you a civilian.

And for the third time, I ask you to explain this claim of yours, because it is not so according to the San Remo Manual.

[Starglider]

I see Darth Hoth is living down to his usual eagerness for guilt-free mass murder. 'Unquestionably it is moral to kill hundreds of civilians' is probably the most chilling and psychopathic attitude possible. Any person with even a shred of morality would ask themselves whether such an action is truly justified, and probably have guilt attacks for the rest of their life after following through. But no, it is 'unquestionable'. Only the worst kind of genocidal fuckwits would say 'obviously I had to kill those civilians, why should I have to think about it or ever feel guilt about terminating possible threats?'.

Unfortunately that's wrong. Under international law only ships carrying war contraband may be seized, but Israel announced in advance that it would seize and divert all of the ships in the convoy, period. Without regard to whether or not they were carrying war contraband. Therefore before any resistance to the Israeli attack took place, Israel had already declared that it would ignore international law and seize the convoy regardless of the actual cargoes of the independent ships. Ships not carrying war contraband should have been cleared to dock in Gaza. The Israeli government instead ordered all of the ships to divert to Israeli ports before having ascertained that any were carrying war contraband. The Israelis violated the law of blockades because they were incensed with the prospect of letting even legitimate aid make landfall in Gaza, no other possibility may be really considered. Since the Israelis had already issued demands in violation of international law the armed defence of the ships in the convoy was quite justified.

This is critically important from a legal perspective and the pro-Israeli faction has been doing their utmost to ignore it. Had the US acted the same way as Israel, it would have siezed the Marcula and taken it to Jacksonville, instead of allowing it through to Cuba, and would have torpedoed and sank the Bucharest (the oil tanker that slipped through the Cuban blockade). These illegal actions would probably have started a nuclear war. Instead the US kept its cool and enforced the blockade legally. Israel has constantly demonstrated that it has nothing but contempt for international law, and that has come back to bite them here.