Thread: Israeli navy opens fire on international aid convoy for Gaza : At least ten dead

Originally Posted by Renton

...totaly agreed that is SOP for the IDF...and if I may say so again...because it's SOP it's totaly predictable...but they didn't fire at first but took the beating, so what was their first instructions...go in and take control of peace protesters?...which suggests that those briefing them got it wrong as Israel stated they already knew many on board wanted to be martyrd and would fight...they should have planned accordingly...they can't have it both ways.

I'm not actually criticising the particular soldiers here...just pointing out that I believe they had bad intel, their planners chose the wrong initial kit for them, and that they reacted exactly the same way anyone would, special forces or not, in a human and predictable way that the enemies of Israel easily foresaw...and used to their advantage

As I said they CAN have it both ways. Groups of people are not always going to go one way or the other universally. Some were peaceful protesters. Others were wannabe martyrs. You plan for both. Hence the paintball guns and other non lethal stuff, and the automatic weapons.

If the people who ran the convoy hadn't tried to "make a statement" and had instead focussed on actually going through the proper channels so the aid they'd accrued could actually HELP someone, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

Originally Posted by Imperator

I say IF....look, double taps are the trng. standard amongst world wide spec-ops, anything else is waste of material and time. I'd like to see a head that still holds any semblance of shape after 2 shots. in the end its all crap, never should have happened...

double taps for if youre on single shot. if youre one full auto and the guys in your face more than two bullets are likely to come out.

if they were using what i think they were using (the tavor) its a 5.56 round which would leave the entrance wounds fairly small and the exits a bit bigger. don't think it would shatter his skull like a watermellon catching a .50 cal round though.


if they were using an mp5 or similar submachine gun like the uzi then they were shooting 9mm which also wouldn't pop the guys head like a melon.

Originally Posted by reality

it can't be both? There were certainly peace protesters (one was a nobel prize laureate for god's sake) on board. There were also people on board who had made repeated statements wishing for martydom.
I'm sure the IDF didn't expect mostly unarmed (ie no guns) civilians to try their luck against trained soldiers with automatics weapons, and a circling helicopter. Thats fucking insane. Even suicide bombers have a legitimate chance of taking a few with them. An unarmed (again im' using unarmed to mean no guns in this instance) man, even several unarmed men, have almost no chance against a prepared, well trained, well armed group of soldiers.

I mean honestly, if you pull a gun on someone do you expect them to charge you, or do what you say? 9/10 are going to do exactly what you say.

Can I take it then that the paint guns were intended to intimidate the nobel prize winner and the side arms for the wannabe martyrs...?

And yes, it is insane to attack armed troops...you'll virtually guarantee a predictable response, certainly from the IDF...you get shot and become a martyr...how else are they to become martyrs unless the IDF kill them...game, set and match to Hamas on that one.

I'm not a military man in any way: there are guys here who could easily run rings round me in that subject, yourself certainly included: but surely there were other alternatives available than simply polarising it into paint guns capitulation, or death by automatic fire?

Why not water canon from Israeli naval ships spraying the area around the helicopter landing zones till enough troops land to repulse any attack, the troops also being issued with ballistic shields, tazers, cattle prods, plastic bullets, bean bag cartridges, any more effective non-lethal weapons than simply paint ball guns?

How would others here with military knowledge have planned this differently, or did Israel get it right?

Originally Posted by reality

Thanks for the link. A few glaring differences immediately present themselves:

1) This is not in a static building, on the ground. Its on a small vessel in the open sea, with troops having announced themselves prior and a helicopter providing support. Sneaking around, like the SAS did in this case, is not an option.

2) there is no hostage or other centralized target to take and extract with. The vessel and its crew and passengers were going to undergo a VERY exacting search, and if nothing untoward was found, be released.

3) There were not small localized groups in different wings of the prison to deal with. Most of the passengers and crew were on the deck. Like I said when you asked why they didn't jason bourne kung fu the guys into submission, the more people you have to deal with and the closer they are the less likely you are going to be able to safely subdue them. In this case non lethal submissions weren't possible, because the "victims" attacked the IDF soldiers en masse, necessitating the use of lethal force.


You are comparing apples and oranges. A hostage situation in a prison is not the same as boarding and searching a ship at sea.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was directly comparing the actions of the SAS with this assault...the intention was in fact to demonstrate that in some instances special forces can go all kinda Jason Bourne and be prepared to go toe to toe with dangerous opponents using non-leathal weapons when faced with those carrying lethal weapons, as opposed to pulling out their side arms and firing four to the head...of course who knows what would have happened if it had all gone t*ts up...but it didn't, because it was well planned and executed.

...it's also my understanding that the Isreali's never intending to search the ships at sea, they were always intending to take over the ships and search them in dock (too big to search thoroughly at sea) but happy to be wrong here...but I do believe that those ships were never getting to Gaza, period, free from any prohibited items, or not.

I'm neither anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, but for me this one is a self inflicted own goal for Israel that need not have panned out the way it did.

Originally Posted by reality

As I said they CAN have it both ways. Groups of people are not always going to go one way or the other universally. Some were peaceful protesters. Others were wannabe martyrs. You plan for both. Hence the paintball guns and other non lethal stuff, and the automatic weapons.

If the people who ran the convoy hadn't tried to "make a statement" and had instead focussed on actually going through the proper channels so the aid they'd accrued could actually HELP someone, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

Surely then, as soon as the first soldier hit the deck and got into real difficulty, the others waiting to rapel down should have switched to plan B and been better prepared when they hit the deck...

The whole idea of the convoy was to make a statement, most aboard in a peaceful fashion, a small number with martyrdom...those ships were never getting to Gaza and they anticipated that...and Israel swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.

...and although Israel stated that they would deliver the aid if they docked and handed to them, they believed that although ultimately it may have been delivered, Israel would have rationed it, defeating the purpose of soo much at once...it would also count towards Israels quota, saving them the need to supply it

Originally Posted by reality

double taps for if youre on single shot. if youre one full auto and the guys in your face more than two bullets are likely to come out.

if they were using what i think they were using (the tavor) its a 5.56 round which would leave the entrance wounds fairly small and the exits a bit bigger. don't think it would shatter his skull like a watermellon catching a .50 cal round though.


if they were using an mp5 or similar submachine gun like the uzi then they were shooting 9mm which also wouldn't pop the guys head like a melon.

...these are nice images to take to bed with me...see ya

Originally Posted by Imperator

why should the arabs be any better served by the 'intl. community' than anyone else is? Putin flattened Grozny. Nor korea pulls shit all the time. 46 dead , torpedoed? Loud remonstrations , declarations, it amounts to very little. .

It is morallly right. If int'l community are not willing to take its obligations, then it should not contribute to the whole mess.

on that note if you think having a nuke protects Kim from the just the deserts he deserves? just wait till Iran gets theirs, they are already the no.1 state sponsor of terrorism, dude, they have not even started yet, just wait

How is Iran transforming to a terrorist state? Why would they want nukes? Israel is making all this mess. They are both terrorist states. Prioritizing Iran is a failed strategy and counter-productive. We need to deal with the one who is at the core of the historical conflict in order to avoid another Iran from riding the same (justified) Cause for their own interests.

Originally Posted by Renton

Can I take it then that the paint guns were intended to intimidate the nobel prize winner and the side arms for the wannabe martyrs...?

And yes, it is insane to attack armed troops...you'll virtually guarantee a predictable response, certainly from the IDF...you get shot and become a martyr...how else are they to become martyrs unless the IDF kill them...game, set and match to Hamas on that one.

I'm not a military man in any way: there are guys here who could easily run rings round me in that subject, yourself certainly included: but surely there were other alternatives available than simply polarising it into paint guns capitulation, or death by automatic fire?

Why not water canon from Israeli naval ships spraying the area around the helicopter landing zones till enough troops land to repulse any attack, the troops also being issued with ballistic shields, tazers, cattle prods, plastic bullets, bean bag cartridges, any more effective non-lethal weapons than simply paint ball guns?

How would others here with military knowledge have planned this differently, or did Israel get it right?




Sorry if I gave the impression that I was directly comparing the actions of the SAS with this assault...the intention was in fact to demonstrate that in some instances special forces can go all kinda Jason Bourne and be prepared to go toe to toe with dangerous opponents using non-leathal weapons when faced with those carrying lethal weapons, as opposed to pulling out their side arms and firing four to the head...of course who knows what would have happened if it had all gone t*ts up...but it didn't, because it was well planned and executed.

...it's also my understanding that the Isreali's never intending to search the ships at sea, they were always intending to take over the ships and search them in dock (too big to search thoroughly at sea) but happy to be wrong here...but I do believe that those ships were never getting to Gaza, period, free from any prohibited items, or not.

I'm neither anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, but for me this one is a self inflicted own goal for Israel that need not have panned out the way it did.

Well you could water cannon them. or flashbang them. ANd the "martyrs" could simply do nothing and make the israelis look worse than the cops during the american civil rights movement. Game set match again for hamas.

Again, they aren't cops. theyre soldiers. soldiers generally don't go into battle equipped with nonlethal weaponry, the IDF especially (they cost too much and are pretty much ineffective on a guy hell bent on blowing himself up).

Originally Posted by Renton

Surely then, as soon as the first soldier hit the deck and got into real difficulty, the others waiting to rapel down should have switched to plan B and been better prepared when they hit the deck...

The whole idea of the convoy was to make a statement, most aboard in a peaceful fashion, a small number with martyrdom...those ships were never getting to Gaza and they anticipated that...and Israel swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.

...and although Israel stated that they would deliver the aid if they docked and handed to them, they believed that although ultimately it may have been delivered, Israel would have rationed it, defeating the purpose of soo much at once...it would also count towards Israels quota, saving them the need to supply it

They ("protesters" upon whom lays the lionshare of the blame for this fuck up imo) had 3 options:
1: do nothing, send no ships don't run a blockade etc.
2: send the ship and pull over when asked. the aid gets there, eventually, and no one gets shot or stabbed.
3: send the ship and "try to make a statement" by trying to run the blockade. this puts them squarely on the IDF's short list and then to add to the debacle they've let some wanna be martyrs in on the mission and these martyrs stir up a large mob and get alot of people hurt or killed.

As you can see they picked option 3.

Both parties picked option 3. Saying Israel is blameless is as stupid as saying that the protesters are blameless.

Originally Posted by reality

They ("protesters" upon whom lays the lionshare of the blame for this fuck up imo) had 3 options:

By making this statement you've assumed it was a fuck-up. Drawing massive world attention to perceived Israeli brutality isn't a fuck-up on the part of the protesters, in fact it was their goal.

Originally Posted by Vincent

Both parties picked option 3. Saying Israel is blameless is as stupid as saying that the protesters are blameless.

No doubt. Each side bears responsibility for its own actions.

Originally Posted by Vincent

Both parties picked option 3. Saying Israel is blameless is as stupid as saying that the protesters are blameless.

Given the situation that Israel was presented. What specifically should their actions/response have been....??



.

Originally Posted by reality

double taps for if youre on single shot. if youre one full auto and the guys in your face more than two bullets are likely to come out.

if they were using what i think they were using (the tavor) its a 5.56 round which would leave the entrance wounds fairly small and the exits a bit bigger. don't think it would shatter his skull like a watermellon catching a .50 cal round though.


if they were using an mp5 or similar submachine gun like the uzi then they were shooting 9mm which also wouldn't pop the guys head like a melon.

my understating is they had side arms only, now they could have rappelled others down and they had their sub of choice, but one shot to head/face won't explode your head maybe not 2, but 4 shots in rapid succession ala an auto, brains etc. come out of their ears mouth nose, the kenetic energy alone will blow their head apart ala 4 shots, their head is literally hamburger.