Israeli commandos
KJ
Active member
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.
Wrong, pistols are sidearms.
If you intend to repel on a HOSTILE vessel you bring your long guns (ie: SMG,s and/or carbines)
Sidearms are carried as a last resort.
In this instance this last resort had to be used.
And yes, I have trained EXTENSIVELY in boarding duties since I was a wee lad at the age of 18 since I was and always will be KJ at heart.
Your fancy diploma says you can point to a place where I can dock my sailboat while on vacation...
How can you tell that the items being used were metal tubes?
I got eyes to see with..
There is videoevidence.
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.
Exactly, so the Israelis felt the need to use deadly force to control the situation.
Had they not they would all be dead by now.
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.
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.
You are again assuming I haven´t been in the situation to have to board a vessel?
You are wrong.
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.
You can´t say **** about where the top of my hat is since you have no ****ing clue.
[removed, no need for comments like that]
Seriously, you are too colored by your own POLITICAL POW,s to discuss this.
I may think it was the wrong thing to do but that was NOT what we were discussing in this thread.
We discussed the performance of the inserted commandos and their intel cell.
A blockade is a blockade is a blockade.
The US did it at Cuba, the Israelis does it now.
Nothing new, but that is still the political aspect of this and NOT what we are discussing in this thread.
Have a nice day Sir..
//KJ.
franzmaximilian
Active member
No Please! This is simply ridiculous. You can put whatever you want among confiscated weapons. Fabricating proofs is common practice among police and security forces and sometimes they get caught. Only an inspection in the presence of independent eyes is believable.
Please remind the facts that happened in Genoa during the G8 Summit 2001:
Two policeman have been persecuted and jailed for bringing in false evidence after they showed a "molotov" bottle found at an activists camp. It was proved that the policemen introduced the bottle in the camp themselves only after the camp had been stormed.
You could have avoided serving us this "truth"!!!!
It's up to you if you choose not to believe the video released of the confiscated weapons, but you can still see the several of those confiscated objects (similar objects) in the other two videos I've posted (both the one by the Israelis and by the Activists, so you can clearly see that none of those two where fabricated).
But it has actually been confirmed by indepentent Norwegian news reporters that the activists on the ship(s) where preparing for voilent confrontations before they set sail, and a Norwegian TV crew that was supposed to come with the convoy did not go since they feared violent confrontations underway based on what they saw on the ship(s).
And I can add that the Norwegian media hasn't been very pro-Israel the last few days so based on that I'm pretty sure that the Israeli video of the confiscated weapons, gas masks etc. is not fabricated.
I try to stay very objective here and base all on my posts on what I (as a soldier) see and read about what happened on the ship, and I do NOT base it at all on my personal opinion/views on the operation as a whole since that is something I wont share here at all.
Big_Z
MilForum Recon
Soldiers of any nation are taught to react and survive. They felt the situaition was going to get out of control and when that happens you die. I doubt there was any choice in their minds. They obviously didn't infil with the intent of killing anyone. They had no where to run too, they had to establish security. In their minds they could either make a statement or get tossed out into the sea.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Pretty much. It was a lousy situation to be in.
Partisan
Active member
It was a crap plan, not thought out thoroughly. I'm pretty sure that the execution was fairly spot on, but it was a bad situation for the marines abseiling onto a deck, one at a time. Additionally the Israeli PR machine, normally on top of things like this were caught flat footed and are scrambling to regain the initiative, which is firmly out of their hands at the moment. Although I expect to see a lot of 3rd party, non govt affiliates, pushing the Israeli line through the media in the very near future.
Overall the sin was overconfidence and belief that because there had never been resistance on previous blockade runners - there would be none this time round, I guess the Israelis have forgotten their own history of blockade running!
I find it interesting that the operation was executed prior to the Israeli PM was due to meet with Obama and the Turkish foreign minister in the US, talk about timing!
The longer term question is what has this done to the balance of power, has it put Turkey firmly into the Moslem camp or will they continue to try and act as a bridge between 2 lifestyles and religions? I think that the ramifications are going to become apparent soon and they do not bode well for Israel.
Overall the sin was overconfidence and belief that because there had never been resistance on previous blockade runners - there would be none this time round, I guess the Israelis have forgotten their own history of blockade running!
I find it interesting that the operation was executed prior to the Israeli PM was due to meet with Obama and the Turkish foreign minister in the US, talk about timing!
The longer term question is what has this done to the balance of power, has it put Turkey firmly into the Moslem camp or will they continue to try and act as a bridge between 2 lifestyles and religions? I think that the ramifications are going to become apparent soon and they do not bode well for Israel.
Naddoður
Active member
Paintballs to pistols, Israel admits ship blunders
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_israel_flotilla_tactics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_israel_flotilla_tactics
Naddoður
Active member
I would like to hear from our Israeli forum members about your opinion.
What do you think of the situation the Commandos came in? Was the IDF so unprepared or what ....!
I can understand if you are little quiet here on this forum right now; but it would be interesting to hear your opinion.
So if you have the courage, let us hear from you.
What do you think of the situation the Commandos came in? Was the IDF so unprepared or what ....!
I can understand if you are little quiet here on this forum right now; but it would be interesting to hear your opinion.
So if you have the courage, let us hear from you.
Bror Jace
Active member
It doesn't look like Israeli members of this forum are eager to chime in on this one ... or are contributing to different threads on this subject.
Technical question:
If the fast-roping Israeli soldiers had dropped flash-bangs onto the deck before they deployed, would that have been enough to clear the deck (somewhat) so they could have dropped a handful of guys and had them orient themselves before they were set upon by "peace activists" wielding pipes and other hand-to-hand weapons.
I guess what I am asking is how effective would flash-bangs be in that open, windy environment (as opposed to enclosed spaces where they are highly effective?
Technical question:
If the fast-roping Israeli soldiers had dropped flash-bangs onto the deck before they deployed, would that have been enough to clear the deck (somewhat) so they could have dropped a handful of guys and had them orient themselves before they were set upon by "peace activists" wielding pipes and other hand-to-hand weapons.
I guess what I am asking is how effective would flash-bangs be in that open, windy environment (as opposed to enclosed spaces where they are highly effective?
They obviously wasn't expecting any heavy resistance on the boat so there were no need to use flashbangs etc. before boarding it.
And to answer your second question as well; no, flashbangs would not have been as effective on an open boat deck with a helicopter hovering above as in a room, so using that probably wouldn't be an option anyway, but there are other things they could have done if they knew about the resistance they were about to face below. (but I wont go any further into this)
Bror Jace
Active member
Yes, they (erroneously) believed this ship would be taken quietly/peacefully like the others were.
I have been on the receiving end of several US Army artillery simulators on open ground ... a couple very close to my position (less than 10 feet). While they certainly get your attention, I can't say they were the least bit debilitating. I just don't know how flash-bangs stack up in comparison.
I would think something like an LRAD (acoustic weapon) could be used to drive the activists below decks. Once below, flash bangs could be used to subdue one compartment at a time.
I have been on the receiving end of several US Army artillery simulators on open ground ... a couple very close to my position (less than 10 feet). While they certainly get your attention, I can't say they were the least bit debilitating. I just don't know how flash-bangs stack up in comparison.
I would think something like an LRAD (acoustic weapon) could be used to drive the activists below decks. Once below, flash bangs could be used to subdue one compartment at a time.
Last edited:
franzmaximilian
Active member
I think this creates more questions about communications and coordination between ships, helicopters and single commandos.
We have seen some footage released by IDF, taken with night vision cameras, showing the commandos being attaked as they were fast roping the ship's deck. Now, I wonder why the same cameras (or other cameras on the choppers) didn't reveal the presence of dozens of militants waiting for the commandos before they actually boarded. Was there no Plan B ready in case something was not going as expected? Were the commandos not wearing hands free radio communication tools? Couldn't camera operators communicate with commandos before they actually begun boarding?
It was said that paintballs are little effective on subjects wearing life jackets: didn't they see with night vision cameras that militants were wearing life jackets before the commandos boarded? This was immediately leading to the need of using live bullets in case of confrontation!
Once on board and being harshly confronted, I think the commandos did what they are trained for: killing.
I do not want to think that the commandos were sent with killing as Plan B.
This should have been Plan Z. I am more and more convinced that the whole action was badly planned, bad managed and bad conducted.
We say that that the fish begins to smell bad from the head: responsibility for this disaster, in my opinion, begins with the poor plan and lack of more options and follows with unbelievably poor communication.
It is a fully political responsibility in the end, unless the IDF acts autonomously from political guidance. But I don't know anything about IDF-Government relations.
Last edited:
I would guess that there were people on the decks of the other boats that were boarded without violent confrontations as well, so they really had no reason to expect any heavy resistance here either (after boarding 5 other ships relatively peacefully).
As for the lifejackets as protection, I would say that if there were normal civilian peace-activists on that last boat a couple of paintball shots to the legs would probably be more then enough to stop them, but it's quite another matter with well-trained activists (that they did not expect to meet there).
There are several reports that says that the commandos requested to use live ammunition several times after the first ones where attacked and stabbed with knives, but they where denied it.
A couple of articles/reports says that it took almost 20minutes from the first commando was attacked and stabbed before they where allowed to use live ammo, so from what I can see the Israelis tried to avoid a "bloodbath" as long as possible (maybe too long??) before they shot the first activists.
Based on what I wrote above I actually think it went so far that they were down to plan Z before opening fire.
They did certainly underestimate the heavy resistance they met on the last ship, no doubt about that.
But I do not want to speculate wether it was bad planning or something else that's to blame for that.
Naddoður
Active member
Well maybe; but it has been tried before with no luck.
On November 28, 2008 the MV Biscaglia was hijacked by Somali pirates.
Two British and one Irish guard, employed by British-based security company Anti Piracy Maritime Security Solutions, were on board the vessel to provide logistical support and non-lethal defensive counter-measures All three are military-trained, two being former marines and one a former paratrooper.
Unarmed, the security guards attempted to repel the attackers for about 40 minutes by firing water cannon, zigzagging the ship, and using a LRAD. The pirates boarded the ship and continued to shoot at the security force, the guards managed to escape by jumping overboard.
The incident caused the usefulness of LRADs to be called into question by Lloyd's.
Naddoður
Active member
Jason Alderwick, a maritime warfare expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, faulted the marines for not commandeering the vessel more efficiently.
“Success begins with planning and with decent intelligence, and they have boarded such ships before," he said. "This time they didn't go in hard enough, fast enough and in sufficient numbers to establish overwhelming control."
“Success begins with planning and with decent intelligence, and they have boarded such ships before," he said. "This time they didn't go in hard enough, fast enough and in sufficient numbers to establish overwhelming control."
Naddoður
Active member
Some information from Israel.
There has been debate within Israel as to whether this was the right unit to use. It is trained for combat, not crowd control.
The best account so far of what happened has come from Ron Ben Yishai, a reporter with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, who was an eyewitness. Ben Yishai's was the first detailed account, and obviously he was placed with the Israeli forces. Other accounts have since come out, from passengers.
He says the plan was to land a team on the top deck and rush the bridge and take control. The assessment, he reports, was that the passengers would show "light resistance and possibly minor violence".
The soldiers, he says, were told to confront protesters verbally, use crowd control tactics and use firearms only to save their own lives.
However, as the first troops rappelled down, one by one, "the unexpected occurred. The passengers... pulled out bats, clubs and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked".
Ron Ben Yishai mentions the bizarre use by the soldiers of paintball guns, probably filled with irritants. You can see one of them in profile on the video. These, he said, were not effective. The commandos were unable to rush the bridge as planned and a second troop was sent in from another helicopter. By now about 30 activists were confronting about 30 troops on deck.
But something more serious was happening. The reporter states that the protesters "attempted to wrest away the soldiers' weapons". They got hold of one handgun, he says, when one soldier, seen on the video, was thrown from the upper deck on to the lower.
This soldier has now identifed himself as the second man onto the deck and the unit commander. Speaking from a hospital bed, he said he had fired his gun at an activist who came at him with a knife but was subsequently stabbed in the stomach anyway. After being thrown onto a lower deck he and another soldier jumped into the sea to escape. He did not mention his pistol being taken from him. He also said the troops expected only passive and verbal resistance.
The soldiers, who had started to use stun grenades, then asked for permission to use their firearms. They were given the go-ahead.
However, this is not seen on the video. Indeed, it stops just as one soldier can be seen levelling his pistol at the protesters. One wonders what happened next. Why did the video stop there?
The Israelis claim that the activists got hold of two pistols and must have fired them as their magazines were found to be empty when recovered. Ben Yishai also quotes one commando as saying that the Israeli forces fired at someone holding a rifle, but no such rifle has been produced.
He says that two soldiers were wounded after "rioters apparently fired at them".
What is not clear at this stage is why so many died and in what circumstances. Did they all die on deck? In a group or one by one?
We do not see any of this on the video and one must ask whether any such video exists and if it does, then why it has not been produced. The reporter says the troops fired at "the rioters' legs". That may have been so, but it must have gone beyond that as well.
Ron Ben Yishai says the Israeli forces made two mistakes. They underestimated the extent of the opposition and they failed to quell it from above, by using tear-gas and stun grenades before they landed.
The general assessment in Israel at this stage therefore is that the troops went in ill-prepared and not in sufficient numbers.
They were put into a position from which they felt they had no option but to open fire and that is not a good position for commanders to place their subordinates in. Hence so much of the criticism within Israel.
It is also clear that the Israelis had little intelligence about what was being prepared on the ship.
It is reminiscent of the British assault in 1947 on the Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish refugees hoping to break the then British naval blockade on Palestine. In that incident, too, the assault force underestimated the opposition, resorted to force, and three of the passengers died.
Thanks to my friend “Mark” from Israel who took the time to e-mail me this.
There has been debate within Israel as to whether this was the right unit to use. It is trained for combat, not crowd control.
The best account so far of what happened has come from Ron Ben Yishai, a reporter with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, who was an eyewitness. Ben Yishai's was the first detailed account, and obviously he was placed with the Israeli forces. Other accounts have since come out, from passengers.
He says the plan was to land a team on the top deck and rush the bridge and take control. The assessment, he reports, was that the passengers would show "light resistance and possibly minor violence".
The soldiers, he says, were told to confront protesters verbally, use crowd control tactics and use firearms only to save their own lives.
However, as the first troops rappelled down, one by one, "the unexpected occurred. The passengers... pulled out bats, clubs and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked".
Ron Ben Yishai mentions the bizarre use by the soldiers of paintball guns, probably filled with irritants. You can see one of them in profile on the video. These, he said, were not effective. The commandos were unable to rush the bridge as planned and a second troop was sent in from another helicopter. By now about 30 activists were confronting about 30 troops on deck.
But something more serious was happening. The reporter states that the protesters "attempted to wrest away the soldiers' weapons". They got hold of one handgun, he says, when one soldier, seen on the video, was thrown from the upper deck on to the lower.
This soldier has now identifed himself as the second man onto the deck and the unit commander. Speaking from a hospital bed, he said he had fired his gun at an activist who came at him with a knife but was subsequently stabbed in the stomach anyway. After being thrown onto a lower deck he and another soldier jumped into the sea to escape. He did not mention his pistol being taken from him. He also said the troops expected only passive and verbal resistance.
The soldiers, who had started to use stun grenades, then asked for permission to use their firearms. They were given the go-ahead.
However, this is not seen on the video. Indeed, it stops just as one soldier can be seen levelling his pistol at the protesters. One wonders what happened next. Why did the video stop there?
The Israelis claim that the activists got hold of two pistols and must have fired them as their magazines were found to be empty when recovered. Ben Yishai also quotes one commando as saying that the Israeli forces fired at someone holding a rifle, but no such rifle has been produced.
He says that two soldiers were wounded after "rioters apparently fired at them".
What is not clear at this stage is why so many died and in what circumstances. Did they all die on deck? In a group or one by one?
We do not see any of this on the video and one must ask whether any such video exists and if it does, then why it has not been produced. The reporter says the troops fired at "the rioters' legs". That may have been so, but it must have gone beyond that as well.
Ron Ben Yishai says the Israeli forces made two mistakes. They underestimated the extent of the opposition and they failed to quell it from above, by using tear-gas and stun grenades before they landed.
The general assessment in Israel at this stage therefore is that the troops went in ill-prepared and not in sufficient numbers.
They were put into a position from which they felt they had no option but to open fire and that is not a good position for commanders to place their subordinates in. Hence so much of the criticism within Israel.
It is also clear that the Israelis had little intelligence about what was being prepared on the ship.
It is reminiscent of the British assault in 1947 on the Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish refugees hoping to break the then British naval blockade on Palestine. In that incident, too, the assault force underestimated the opposition, resorted to force, and three of the passengers died.
Thanks to my friend “Mark” from Israel who took the time to e-mail me this.