Israeli commandos

[Ted]

Another "provocation" which as per usual only resulted in the deaths of the unarmed provocateurs.

I never understood this excuse... Who thought this one up? "Hmmm... let's see.... we have a bunch of dead people armed with sticks and kitchen appliances on the one side and living commando's armed with military appliances on the other side. Yeah, we were provoked by them peace core people mixed with highly trained Palestinian insurgents. And when they came at us, after we boarded their ships, well..... it was either them or us!" And the other people of the Staff were dumbfounded by the sheer brilliance of this plan and wondered if they could also use this excuse against children armed with sticks and stones....

But I am afraid this one goes into the books like all the others before. Once again it is shown that international relations are still determined by those who carry the biggest stick. International conventions are nice get togethers, where you can have a drink and at the end of the day, they are not worth the paper they are written on...

 

[Redleg]

Please stay on topic!
As franzmaximilian wrote, he only wants to discuss the technical aspects of the boarding here, and nothing else.

Your own video showed that the commandos did have non-lethal weapons at their disposal.

Yes, and as far as I could see they used them after the first soldiers where attacked, but with little effect.

I also don't buy the excuse that Israeli Naval Commandos, some of th best trained close-quarter fighters in the world managed to lose not one but TWO of their own weapons to unarmed civilian activists.

From what I can see on the videos the commandos did not expect heavy resistance when boarding the ship, and the first ones who landed there where attacked instantly by at least 5-10 men armed with metal poles (and that is far from unarmed civilians).
It doesn't matter how well trained in close-combat you are, when facing an "enemy" like that you have no chance to defend yourself wihtout using live ammo straight away (which they did not). They are beat to the ground almost before they land on the ship and at least one soldier is thrown over the side of the ship while the activists keeps some of his gear (possible firearm as well??)


So my point here is that as far as I can see the Israeli commandos did not go in "guns blazing" and shooting everyone in sight with live ammo, like the first news articles would like us to belive, but they went in pretty "soft" and most probably did not expect any heavy resistance and acted accordingly.
They startet to use non-lethal weapons after several of the soldiers where attacked quite brutally, but those weapons didn't seem to have any effect and when some of the activists got hold of one or two handguns (doesn't really matter how many) and started to fire those (again it really doesn't matter if they hit any Israeli soldiers or not) the "**** hits the fan" really bad and the Israeli commandos have no other options then to defend themselves accordingly.

The number of injured and killed activists are also still quite uncertain, I've see that today they write that 9 activists may have been killed (and not at least 19 like it was reported yesterday, with many "killed in their sleep"), so that's the reason why I never believe the initial reports/articles about situations like this anymore.


And again, please keep this thread free of any speculations if it was right or not to board the ship in the first place, I wont comment on that at all and that's not the original purpose of this thread anyway.

 

[mmarsh]

How could the Israelis send commandos on ship full of Palestinians activists and not expect at least the possibility of resistance? I cant believe they were *THAT* naive. Thats like hitting a hornets nest with a stick and then being shocked to find out that the hornets actually come out and sting you. I don't believe that for a second.

And there is something else that don't add up either. I don't believe that Naval commandos would have lost their weapons so quickly, and to unarmed (no firearms) civvies no less. But for the sake of argument suppose I do. Say the activists had captured 2 handguns, and attempted to use them against their boarders. It still doesn't explain how NINE (or more) people got killed and many more were wounded. The Israelis said they had only had 4 wounded, two of which were only lightly (the other 2 are moderately). I have heard nothing (yet) about a single Israeli suffering a gunshot wound (and I think we would have by now). Which means the activists despite having *supposedly* two guns, didn't manage to hit a single Israeli at extremely close range. How likely is that?

Furthermore, one of the gunshot victims was Australian, he was shot in the leg. I very seriously doubt that a western peace activist would use violence as it contradicts the point of being a peace activist.

What I think happened: when the Israelis encountered resistance they responded with a disproportional use of force and I say this because A)their version of events doesn't make sense, and B) they have done so before.

 

[Redleg]

How could the Israelis send commandos on ship full of Palestinians activists and not expect at least the possibility of resistance? I cant believe they were *THAT* naive. Thats like hitting a hornets nest with a stick and then being shocked to find out that the hornets actually come out and sting you. I don't believe that for a second.

They went in with non-lethal weapons, but they did have sidearms just in case it escalated. So it looks like they were prepared for it, but they certainly wasn't prepared to be attacked the second they landed on the boat, as the videos shows.

And there is something else that don't add up either. I don't believe that Naval commandos would have lost their weapons so quickly, and to unarmed (no firearms) civvies no less.

Just look at the video of the first 2-3 commandos that were attacked and you can see how they could have lost their handguns there, without having any posibilities to prevent it. (especially the guy getting throwed over the side of the ship while they took some of his equipment).
Large metal poles are certainly not unarmed they way I look at it.

It still doesn't explain how NINE (or more) people got killed and many more were wounded.

again, yes it certainly does on a crowded boat like that.
There were at least +30 on the top deck where the videos are taken alone, and we do not know if the activitst where hit/killed by their own bullets or by the Israeli firing at them (I would actually guess that it's quite possible that it's a combination of both). An adrenaline filled untrained civilian emptying a clip of 15-16 rounds would probably hit anything else then his intended target, and that's a fact.

The Israelis said they had only had 4 wounded, two of which were only lightly (the other 2 are moderately). I have heard nothing (yet) about a single Israeli suffering a gunshot wound (and I think we would have by now).

Last report I've seen says at least 6 wounded Israelis, 2 of them severly wounded.

Which means the activists despite having *supposedly* two guns, didn't manage to hit a single Israeli at extremely close range. How likely is that?

Again, that is actually very likely...
I've had several fresh guys at the shooting range not hitting with a single bullet on 5-7 meter range firing at a 1m high target the first time they tried a pistol, and that was under calm and controlled conditions.

Furthermore, one of the gunshot victims was Australian, he was shot in the leg. I very seriously doubt that a western peace activist would use violence as it contradicts the point of being a peace activist.

If he was on the deck of the boat when the firefight started then he didn't necessarily participate in the violence, but bullets do miss their intended target and may recoil quite a bit on steel walls/ship parts..
So again, in a situation like this **** really happens...

What I think happened: when the Israelis encountered resistance they responded with a disproportional use of force and I say this because A)their version of events doesn't make sense, and B) they have done so before.

I've only commented on what I've seen in the video clips and in news articles and reports, and I've written my conclusion on what I belive happened in an earlier post.
The good thing about these clips is that both the video clip released from the Israeli Army and the clip by the activists from on top of the boat matches, so it's quite easy to see that the first commandos was taken by surprise when they tried to board the ship as peacefully as possible (at first).

 

[George]

Please stay on topic!
As franzmaximilian wrote, he only wants to discuss the technical aspects of the boarding here, and nothing else.

It would seem that this Thread belongs in the "military Discussions" section instead of "political discussions".:smile:

 

[A Can of Man]

Yes a few pointers:

1) I can see how the Israelis could lose a few of their sidearms. Especially in the case of the first and second guy.

2) There is a footage of a guy on the deck stabbing an Israeli commando, so I don't think that's going to be a light wound.

3) If the wind was strong (due to helicopter downdraft) it may have minimized the effect of the pepper ball rounds, making the nonlethal munitions' effects far less than anticipated.

4) It's very possible to miss at close ranges if you are not properly trained. There are enough "Cops" videos out there with policemen missing at point blank to show you that.

5) Judging from the light armament of the Israelis they were not really expecting any real trouble and probably were not thinking about causing a whole lot either. They were taken by surprise. It was (from the video) very dark and had they lost sidearms, there could have been no way to tell who in the crowd had it and who did not with enough certainty.

So after looking at the videos, I do not think the Israeli commandos went on board with any mallicious intent at all. The Turks fought the Israelis as their territory was being trespassed and it got to the point where the Israelis either had to draw their weapons and fire or be taken prisoner.

 

[franzmaximilian]

Gentlemen, You may find interesting reading this :
http://debka.com/article/8824/

Franz

 

[Redleg]

It would seem that this Thread belongs in the "military Discussions" section instead of "political discussions".:smile:

Yes it does, so I've moved it now.

Gentlemen, You may find interesting reading this :
http://debka.com/article/8824/

Franz

That was interesting reading, and it also supports many of my "theories" in this thread..


Here's a video showing some of the weapons found on the ship, including knives and other stabbing weapons, axes, improvised blunt weapons, slingshots and more.
Many of those are lethal weapons, and not something you would expect to find in the hands of peace activists, so that also suggests that the Israelis were not prepared for the kind of resistance they met on the boat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM

So after looking at the videos, I do not think the Israeli commandos went on board with any mallicious intent at all. The Turks fought the Israelis as their territory was being trespassed and it got to the point where the Israelis either had to draw their weapons and fire or be taken prisoner.

My thoughts as well.
And in a situation like that where they had been attacked with lethal weapons the second they landed on the boat being taken prisoner probably wasn't an option at all anymore since that most probably could mean that they would be seriously injured or killed.

 

[senojekips]

Here's a video showing some of the weapons found on the ship, including knives and other stabbing weapons, axes, improvised blunt weapons, slingshots and more.
Many of those are lethal weapons, and not something you would expect to find in the hands of peace activists, so that also suggests that the Israelis were not prepared for the kind of resistance they met on the boat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM

I cannot see one "weapon" here that I could not find or make in minutes around my own house. This is obviously a red herring being put up by the Israelis to Justify their piracy on the high seas. It shows little more than a collection pieces of timber, of Galley and personal knives that could be found on almost any similar number of people.

The lies and deceit have started already. The Israelis have already accused the Turks of allowing "weapons" on board and it has been strenuously denied by Turkish Customs Officials. All passengers embarking were searched and in some cases X Rayed.

Source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-211697-customs-officials-deny-israeli-claims-weapons-were-onboard.html
If we read what some of our members have said in the Somalian piracy thread, the Israelis certainly deserved far worse than they got. In one botched raid they have killed and wounded more than all of the Somalian pirates in several years.

So much for the allegedly well trained commandos and well thought plans of the Israeli military, many of whom are already on the international War Crimes watch list.

This is clearly the start of a whitewash. It must be remembered that all other things aside, the Israelis had no legitimate reason to send armed troops on board a foreign vessel in International waters. End of story.....

 

[MontyB]

So after looking at the videos, I do not think the Israeli commandos went on board with any mallicious intent at all. The Turks fought the Israelis as their territory was being trespassed and it got to the point where the Israelis either had to draw their weapons and fire or be taken prisoner.

Umm the fact that they boarded the ship without permission is itself an aggressive act so "malicious intent" is irrelevant, the only question that needs to be answered is whether the boarding was justifiable.

As many other websites have pointed out here, how loud would the war drums be beating had this been done by Iran?

 

[Redleg]

I cannot see one "weapon" here that I could not find or make in minutes around my own house. This is obviously a red herring being put up by the Israelis to Justify their piracy on the high seas. It shows little more than a collection pieces of timber, of Galley and personal knives that could be found on almost any similar number of people.

As long as you start using those "pieces of timber/steel, galley and personal knives" against me or another person they are certainly classified as weapons in my book (and by almost all military forces and law enforcement agencies around the world).
And from what I can see on that video many/most of those "ordinary household objects" where hopefully not like the ones found in your house because they where clearly prepared to be used as weapons in advance.

If we read what some of our members have said in the Somalian piracy thread, the Israelis certainly deserved far worse than they got. In one botched raid they have killed and wounded more than all of the Somalian pirates in several years.

So much for the allegedly well trained commandos and well thought plans of the Israeli military, many of whom are already on the international War Crimes watch list.

This is clearly the start of a whitewash. It must be remembered that all other things aside, the Israelis had no legitimate reason to send armed troops on board a foreign vessel in International waters. End of story.....

Umm the fact that they boarded the ship without permission is itself an aggressive act so "malicious intent" is irrelevant, the only question that needs to be answered is whether the boarding was justifiable.

Again, both of you still seems to miss the topic of this thread.
Please read what I've wrote about that earlier in the thread again.

For this thread it does NOT matter if the entire operation was illegal, immoral etc. at all. As I've said a few times in here already, I wont comment on that at all, only on the techical aspects of the boarding itself seen from a military perspective.

 

[KJ]

Fact 1. Israelis repels down onto a ship with non leathals instead of their long guns.

Fact 2. When the first soldier is on the fastrope you can se an angry mob with metaltubing waiting on him.

Fact 3. Israelis uses said nonleathal but they have little effect since the mob uses lifejackets as improvised flakjackets.
They are armed with metaltubing and chairs

Fact 4. After two of their guys are down the Israelis finds it necessary to resort to deadly force.

The only thing surprising me is that the Israelis didn´t bring SMG,s for this op.
Had they done so the situation could have been controled quicker.
Granted, a few more dead but the commandos would have been alright.

This is what we can read from the videos that are not politics (maybe with the exception of the lack of real ordonance.)

//KJ.

 

[Naddoður]

Inexplicably, only a small contingent of naval commandos was dispatched to take control of a ship carrying hundreds of activists. And the commandos came on board carrying paintball guns, apparently under the misconception that the takeover of the Mavi Marmara would be, if not a game, then certainly not a confrontation with an enemy.

The IDF’s intelligence most be deeply flawed. As the footage showed, the outnumbered, under-equipped and incorrectly prepared commandos found themselves not grappling with unruly peace activists or demonstrators, to whom they had been ordered to show “restraint,” but being viciously attacked before they had barely set foot on deck. The clips showed clusters of people swarming around each of the commandos, and beating them over and over with clubs and bars.

It could have ended a great deal better. Israel is facing a battle to maintain diplomatic relations with the flotilla-sponsoring Turks, condemnation from much of the Arab world, milder expressions of concern and criticism from Western nations, a concerted diplomatic campaign against it at the UN, and exacerbated fears of internal and regional violence.

In such circumstances, facing such hostility, it is hard to fathom why the IDF so underestimated the challenge its soldiers would face, and thus erred so strikingly over both its choice of how to thwart the flotilla, and over the number of soldiers, and the equipment, it sent into the battle at sea.

 

[franzmaximilian]

I would also add that is only the eye of experts that can recognize a paintball (soft air?) gun from an assault rifle, specially in darkness or poor light.
What the activists saw landing on their ship deck was soldiers heavily armed.

 

[Naddoður]

I would also add that is only the eye of experts that can recognize a paintball (soft air?) gun from an assault rifle, specially in darkness or poor light.
What the activists saw landing on their ship deck was soldiers heavily armed.

A normal person would probably not try to attack a commando soldier armed with an assault rifle; but a trained activist might!

 

[senojekips]

Fact 1. Israelis repels down onto a ship with non leathals instead of their long guns.

WRONG,.. they were in fact armed with pistols (and in all possibility other weapons as were seen in the TV clip shown here in Australia) Pistols are, contrary to what you may think, lethal weapons and are only carried if you intend to use them. Rappelling on board a vessel in international waters in the middle of the night whilst armed is not what people with any peaceful intent do, therefore their intent must be considered as hostile and probably life threatening. Israel is infamous for murdering people that it considers "dangerous".

Murder Most Foul

Fact 2. When the first soldier is on the fastrope you can se an angry mob with metaltubing waiting on him.

How can you tell that the items being used were metal tubes?

Fact 3. Israelis uses said nonleathal but they have little effect since the mob uses lifejackets as improvised flakjackets.
They are armed with metaltubing and chairs

The passengers were entirely within their rights under International Maritime law to resist the illegal occupation of their vessel by armed intruders. They would and did use whatever came to hand, and were obviously not well prepared as just a few men with short pieces of 25mm water pipe could have easily broken the legs (first) and then arms, of the attackers as they rappelled on board and then killed them almost at leisure.

Fact 4. After two of their guys are down the Israelis finds it necessary to resort to deadly force.

That is akin to saying that a bank robber who is refused money, finds it necessary to resort to force. What you very conveniently forget here, as does everyone else, is that the attackers were committing an act of piracy on the high seas, and are thereby criminals. Whereas the passengers, were entirely within their International rights.

The only thing surprising me is that the Israelis didn´t bring SMG,s for this op.
Had they done so the situation could have been controled quicker.
Granted, a few more dead but the commandos would have been alright.

This is what we can read from the videos that are not politics (maybe with the exception of the lack of real ordonance.)

Your views are typical of those who bought this ill planned and poorly orchestrated mess about, I only hope that you find yourself in this position one day.

I am an Internationally certified Ship and Port Facilities Security Officer, and can assure you that you are talking out of the top of your hat. I have a further 8 of these certificates in such specialties as anti terrorism and anti piracy. I show this English certificate, because it is the easiest to scan, not being in a frame. You can check with the International Maritime Security Agency if you wish, my ID number is easy enough to read. My certification is still valid.

 

[senojekips]

A normal person would probably not try to attack a commando soldier armed with an assault rifle; but a trained activist might!

If they are willing to break International law, as they are in this case, and having the record that they do for murdering innocent women and children, it would only be common sense to try and kill them as quickly as possible.

Dead commandos tell no lies.

 

[Redleg]

WRONG,.. they were in fact armed with pistols (and in all possibility other weapons as were seen in the TV clip shown here in Australia) Pistols are, contrary to what you may think, lethal weepons and are only carried if you intend to use them.

No, pistols are normally carried as sidearms only to be used as a last resort in operations like this.

How can you tell that the items being used were metal tubes?

It's easy to see that on the video clips, and especially if you compare them with the confiscated weapons in the other video.

The passengers were entirely within their rights under International Maritime law to resist the illegal occupation of their vessel by armed intruders.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's still not the discussion here.

They would and did use whatever came to hand, and were obviously not well prepared as just a few men with short pieces of 25mm water pipe could have easily broken the legs (first) and then arms, of the attackers as they rappelled on board and then killed them almost at leisure.

They probably did break the arms and legs of the first soldiers who landed on the boat, and I would guess that the only thing that saved their lives there where stab/bullet proof jackets and their helmets.

That is akin to saying that a bank robber who is refused money, finds it necessary to resort to force.

A very bad comparison if you ask me..
But if that bank robber gets attacked with knives and clubs by well prepared civilians the second he enters the bank and they try to kill him before he was able to speak or do anything at all in the bank, would you say that he should just lay down and get what he "deserves", or is he also allowed to try to defend his life even if he maybe did try to rob the bank??
At least here in Norway those armed civilians would have been charged with murder if they killed him...

What you very conveniently forget here, as does everyone else, is that the attackers were committing an act of piracy on the high seas, and are thereby criminals. Whereas the passengers, were entirely within their International rights.

That is still completelly irrelevant for this thread, as I've tried to say many times already..
We're discussing what the commandos did and how they where attacked and started to defend themselves from the second they startet to fastrope down to the boat, and nothing else at all!
It does NOT matter if it was wrong or not to send them down there in the first place, that is irrelevant for this thread since they where sent down and that situation did happen!

No one here has argued at all that this was a f***ed up situation, but do you try to say that a soldier that has been sent out on a mission that goes terribly wrong and may have been based on bad decisions does not have the right to defend his and his team-mates lives if it comes to that???

Your views are typical of those who bought this ill planned and poorly orchestrated mess about, I only hope that you find yourself in this position one day.

Have you considered the thought that several members in here may have been in similar situations before??

You're really mixing politics into this discussion, and most others, me included, are not discussion the political aspects of this situation at all, there are other threads for that already!

If they are willing to break International law, as they are in this case, and having the record that they do for murdering innocent women and children, it would only be common sense to try and kill them as quickly as possible.

Dead commandos tell no lies.

So lets asume that you where one of the commandos sent down on that boat (or any other similar situation for that matter), what would you have done different then what they did there to save innocent lives and the lives of your team-mates?? (and don't say that you would never would have been one of those commandos in the first place....)



And this is (probably) the end of this discussion from me.
If you really can't see what I and the others in here are trying to say by now then I unfortunately don't think that anything else I post here from now on will change that.

 

[Naddoður]

If they are willing to break International law, as they are in this case, and having the record that they do for murdering innocent women and children, it would only be common sense to try and kill them as quickly as possible.

Dead commandos tell no lies.

Oh my god lets talk nonsense!

It seems like you are so indoctrinated by your own attitudes to Israel that you obviously can’t discuss anything whatsoever about Israel on a serious level.

 

[senojekips]

Oh my god lets talk nonsense!

It seems like you are so indoctrinated by your own attitudes to Israel that you obviously can’t discuss anything whatsoever about Israel on a serious level.

Open your eyes to the realities of life and Internationally recognised conventions and you will see that as radical as I may seem to your very sheltered views, that am correct. The ignorance of youth will pass.

You have a lot to learn and a big world to see yet, believe me. My views were not always as they are now, 20 years ago I was 180 degrees opposed in my attitudes to Israel, even 10 years ago I had my doubts.

Do you read the World Press? have you read what the Israelis have accused the Turkish Officials of? That's why I made the remark about lies.