• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israelis fired 308 bullets at aid ship

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While the Israeli military is naturally still defending its actions there was one thing I found interesting:

Israeli commandos fired 308 live bullets aboard a Gaza-bound aid ship last May to repel passengers who attacked them with lethal weapons including a snatched Uzi machine pistol, Israel's top general said today.

In a sometimes testy second round of testimony before a state-appointed inquest, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi insisted the navy's killing of nine pro-Palestinian Turks on the converted cruise ship Mavi Marmara had been unavoidable.
Source: Irish Times

We all heard how the Israeli soldiers were only armed with pistols for self-defense, but when I read "Uzi" and "machine pistol" I naturally got curious and found the following picture of this machine pistol mentioned:



Apparently it is a common weapon used by Israeli commandos when repelling. Here is a picture of one holding it:



So in fact the Israelis did bring automatic weapons and there was nothing unusual about it. In essence they were not unprepared for anything. They went in intending for it to mainly be a crowd control action, bringing anti-riot weaponry devoted to that purpose, but circumstances led to them using lethal force with the weapons they would normally carry during such an operation. Notably the article only mentions "a" machine pistol, meaning one. Since it was an automatic that explains claims from soldiers of automatic weapons fire on their forces.

Seems my argument of this situation following the typical path of escalation during crackdowns on protests is much stronger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So in fact the Israelis did bring automatic weapons and there was nothing unusual about it. In essence they were not unprepared for anything.
That the soldiers were prepared for some scenarios does not alter the facts that they were confronted by a premediated ambush. The BBC's documentary, the first independent assessment of what happened, reveals the premeditated nature of what the Israeli forces faced.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The title to this thread is deceptive. The Israelis did not fire bullets AT THE SHIP. They fired bullets at those attacking them while on the ship.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That the soldiers were prepared for some scenarios does not alter the facts that they were confronted by a premediated ambush. The BBC's documentary, the first independent assessment of what happened, reveals the premeditated nature of what the Israeli forces faced.
What this suggests is that the most present on board that would only be intended for use in lethal encounters are three switchblades. With some 600 people on board and dozens assembled where the soldiers repelled down it suggests any intended resistance by the group in general was meant to be less than lethal. This at the same time dispels the myth propagated by some that Israeli soldiers were going easy on them or not being provided with adequate defense.

Also, calling it an ambush is simply false because many people on board were openly attacking soldiers from the beginning. The soldiers were fully aware they would face some resistance and were expecting it.

The title to this thread is deceptive. The Israelis did not fire bullets AT THE SHIP. They fired bullets at those attacking them while on the ship.
I just used the title of the article. Take your complaint up with the Irish Times.
 
Last edited:

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
While the Uzi, the mini-Uzi and the Uzi-Pro are all considered to be sub machine guns(SMG), the micro-Uzi that you're referring to here is indeed an automatic pistol, and I'm surprised that you have actually had to search google to know how an Uzi looks like.

I don't see how that changes one fact or another though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While the Uzi, the mini-Uzi and the Uzi-Pro are all considered to be sub machine guns(SMG), the micro-Uzi that you're referring to here is indeed an automatic pistol, and I'm surprised that you have actually had to search google to know how an Uzi looks like.
I am not a gun person and would not be able to so quickly identify an Uzi even if we were just talking about the well-known assault rifle. However, I doubt just any given person not experienced with guns would know what a machine pistol is let alone what an Uzi version looks like.

I don't see how that changes one fact or another though.
Like I said, many were claiming that the soldiers were not being sent in with adequate defense or preparation. These facts strongly suggest otherwise. Also the report and what people talked about here generally only mentioned "pistols" and it would certainly have made a big difference if people knew what we were actually talking about.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am not a gun person and would not be able to so quickly identify an Uzi even if we were just talking about the well-known assault rifle. However, I doubt just any given person not experienced with guns would know what a machine pistol is let alone what an Uzi version looks like.



Like I said, many were claiming that the soldiers were not being sent in with adequate defense or preparation. These facts strongly suggest otherwise. Also the report and what people talked about here generally only mentioned "pistols" and it would certainly have made a big difference if people knew what we were actually talking about.
could you please explain how does it matter if the pistols are Jeriho or mini Uzi ? I do not understand whats the difference besides the fact that Uzi can fire in full automatic mode that is rarely used... they even have the same caliber as far as I know...
 

Mira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
could you please explain how does it matter if the pistols are Jeriho or mini Uzi ? I do not understand whats the difference besides the fact that Uzi can fire in full automatic mode that is rarely used... they even have the same caliber as far as I know...
According to the Turkish forensic findings the 9 dead were shot at least 30 times. That doesn't look like the result of warning shots to me, not even aimed to injure and weaken, 30 shots in 9 bodies are shots that are meant to kill, don't you think so ?
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
According to the Turkish forensic findings the 9 dead were shot at least 30 times. That doesn't look like the result of warning shots to me, not even aimed to injure and weaken, 30 shots in 9 bodies are shots that are meant to kill, don't you think so ?
First of all, I still fail to see the conection between a mini-Uzi and a Jeriho, what does the number of bullets found in the dead bodies has to do with this? How is this question got anything to do with the point I was making? Or should there be no connection between the two and you are just trying to change the topic?

But to answear your question, I think it depends on where they were shot, 30 bullets in 9 bodies means about 3 bullets per body in average, this sounds more than reasonable, can't it be that 3 soldiers took 3 different shots? can't it be that the person who got shot was charging at a soldier with a knife and this soldier shot him multiple times until he fell? its reasonable enough, we will have to hear what the inquiry has to say, my belief is that those who got shot probably deserved it.
 

Mira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First of all, I still fail to see the conection between a mini-Uzi and a Jeriho, what does the number of bullets found in the dead bodies has to do with this? How is this question got anything to do with the point I was making? Or should there be no connection between the two and you are just trying to change the topic?

But to answear your question, I think it depends on where they were shot, 30 bullets in 9 bodies means about 3 bullets per body in average, this sounds more than reasonable, can't it be that 3 soldiers took 3 different shots? can't it be that the person who got shot was charging at a soldier with a knife and this soldier shot him multiple times until he fell? its reasonable enough, we will have to hear what the inquiry has to say, my belief is that those who got shot probably deserved it.
I did not change the subject. I got my infromation from the article posted in the OP. The article does not say that the 30 bullets were evenly distributed in the 9 bodies, it says that 30 bullets were found in 9 bodies.

One doesn't need to shoot 3 or more times at someone as a warning. YOU think the 9 men deserved to die, I don't think that anyone deserves to die.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I did not change the subject. I got my infromation from the article posted in the OP. The article does not say that the 30 bullets were evenly distributed in the 9 bodies, it says that 30 bullets were found in 9 bodies.
I said average, as long as no more details are available I don't know a better analysis tool to use to discuss an individual case


One doesn't need to shoot 3 or more times at someone as a warning.
When someone charges you with a knife you do not shoot a warning shot, you aim to center mass and take him down.

YOU think the 9 men deserved to die, I don't think that anyone deserves to die
deserved to die? well thats abit harsh, I think that if you play with matches you shouldn't be supprised if you get burnt. I think that if someone assaults someone else then the other one has the right to use every means to defend his life, and if someone charges you with a knife from a close range you have every right to aim to his center mass and take him down.

As I see it, the deaths should have been avoided before the takeover even started to take place, the failure was in the assesment of the situation and not the handling of the situation as it developed
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I am not a gun person and would not be able to so quickly identify an Uzi even if we were just talking about the well-known assault rifle. However, I doubt just any given person not experienced with guns would know what a machine pistol is let alone what an Uzi version looks like.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people out there on the internets who can tell what is what, especially when it comes to popular weapons such as the Uzi, the AK-47, etc.
However I was of course not scolding you for not knowing or anything like that.

Like I said, many were claiming that the soldiers were not being sent in with adequate defense or preparation. These facts strongly suggest otherwise. Also the report and what people talked about here generally only mentioned "pistols" and it would certainly have made a big difference if people knew what we were actually talking about.
I see no difference, the IDF makes very little use of pistols at all, it doesn't really trust in sidearms, and when it does it's mainly Israeli created sidearms such as the Jericho pistol or the micro-Uzi auto pistol, and it's pretty much used by special forces and only special forces. (Regular officers are usually getting the glock pistol)

I can however understand how knowing that the pistols used were semi-automatic/automatic would explain the bursts of bullets hitting the targeted individuals.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One doesn't need to shoot 3 or more times at someone as a warning. YOU think the 9 men deserved to die, I don't think that anyone deserves to die.
When a person poses an immediate risk to the life of the soldiers, whether it be a person aiming a reloaded assault rifle or sidearm at you, or whether it be a person lying over a soldier holding him down and trying to stab him with a knife, the soldiers are required to engage in what is called "shoot to neutralize". That is remove the threat the person poses to the life of the soldiers as soon as possible. This policy exists whether in combat with insurgents in hostile land or in combat with armed assaulting individuals on board of a ship. There is no "they deserved to die" here, if they pose a threat to life that threat needs to be removed, and the life of the threat posing individual is but a secondary issue.
 

Mira

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
its reasonable enough, we will have to hear what the inquiry has to say, my belief is that those who got shot probably deserved it.
deserved to die? well thats abit harsh, I think that if you play with matches you shouldn't be supprised if you get burnt. I think that if someone assaults someone else then the other one has the right to use every means to defend his life, and if someone charges you with a knife from a close range you have every right to aim to his center mass and take him down.

As I see it, the deaths should have been avoided before the takeover even started to take place, the failure was in the assesment of the situation and not the handling of the situation as it developed


When a person poses an immediate risk to the life of the soldiers, whether it be a person aiming a reloaded assault rifle or sidearm at you, or whether it be a person lying over a soldier holding him down and trying to stab him with a knife, the soldiers are required to engage in what is called "shoot to neutralize". That is remove the threat the person poses to the life of the soldiers as soon as possible. This policy exists whether in combat with insurgents in hostile land or in combat with armed assaulting individuals on board of a ship. There is no "they deserved to die" here, if they pose a threat to life that threat needs to be removed, and the life of the threat posing individual is but a secondary issue.

1-They had no business attacking a ship in international waters.
2-A man wounded by gunshot cannot "lie on a soldier and try to stab"
3- 9 dead on one side, 0 on the other=disproportional response as usual.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
1-They had no business attacking a ship in international waters.
2-A man wounded by gunshot cannot "lie on a soldier and try to stab"
3- 9 dead on one side, 0 on the other=disproportional response as usual.
You repeat your known beliefs about the flotilla incident, this has not much to do with my response to you which has handled the specific claims regarding the bullets.

Nevertheless;
1) They did.
2) A man can be shot while lying on a soldier and trying to stab him.
3) You're twisting the value of proportionality, it says nothing about some "permitted amount of casualties" for each side and rather about whether or not the force used was necessary for the specific situation, and that was the subject of my reply to you.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
That the soldiers were prepared for some scenarios does not alter the facts that they were confronted by a premediated ambush. The BBC's documentary, the first independent assessment of what happened, reveals the premeditated nature of what the Israeli forces faced.
Wait how were they ambushed when it was their boat that was boarded?
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Moderator's Warning:
No trolling. Discuss the OP - Commission testimony of rounds fired aboard the Mavi Marmara
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
could you please explain how does it matter if the pistols are Jeriho or mini Uzi ? I do not understand whats the difference besides the fact that Uzi can fire in full automatic mode that is rarely used... they even have the same caliber as far as I know...
I have been explaining. Not only are these weapons not mere pistols they are exactly what Israeli soldiers would be carrying when repelling from a helicopter. You yourself argued before that Israeli soldiers boarded with "only a sidearm" as some sort of proof that they were going easy on these people who then violently tried to kill them.

This is simply about dispelling yet another myth being propagated in support of Israel regarding the flotilla.

But to answear your question, I think it depends on where they were shot, 30 bullets in 9 bodies means about 3 bullets per body in average, this sounds more than reasonable, can't it be that 3 soldiers took 3 different shots? can't it be that the person who got shot was charging at a soldier with a knife and this soldier shot him multiple times until he fell? its reasonable enough, we will have to hear what the inquiry has to say, my belief is that those who got shot probably deserved it.
We have very compelling evidence that at least one definitely did not deserve it, in that he was not armed in any way at any time. Indeed his may even be the death that incited the more extreme violence from the people on the flotilla. There is also some disturbing evidence of execution-style killings by Israeli soldiers.

I think that most who were shot and killed probably had been posing some real or perceived threat to Israeli soldiers, but one also has to understand these situations always create problems. When in the heat of the moment a soldier does not usually have time or at least does not feel as if there is time to discern a legitimate threat from something that merely appears threatening when it is not. Then there are some soldiers who fail to control their emotions in such a situation and commit acts that are not in any way legitimate acts of self-defense.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just used the title of the article. Take your complaint up with the Irish Times.

You SELECTED the article, which is a conscious choice, and that includes the deceptively worded title. That the Irish times lacks the journalistic integrity necessary to avoid such deception is less relevant to the discussion here than the fact you found the disingenuous wording attractive enough to promote.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You SELECTED the article, which is a conscious choice, and that includes the deceptively worded title. That the Irish times lacks the journalistic integrity necessary to avoid such deception is less relevant to the discussion here than the fact you found the disingenuous wording attractive enough to promote.
Dude, you are seriously overreacting. I literally only used the title of the article for the thread because I could not bother myself to come up with a different one. You are assigning a nefarious motive to something completely meaningless.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have been explaining. Not only are these weapons not mere pistols they are exactly what Israeli soldiers would be carrying when repelling from a helicopter. You yourself argued before that Israeli soldiers boarded with "only a sidearm" as some sort of proof that they were going easy on these people who then violently tried to kill them.
You've already been explained this.
The micro-Uzi is indeed a sidearm and a pistol, your claims here that soldiers were equipped with lethal weapons that are not sidearms while boarding the ship are hence completely detached from reality.

We have very compelling evidence that at least one definitely did not deserve it, in that he was not armed in any way at any time. Indeed his may even be the death that incited the more extreme violence from the people on the flotilla. There is also some disturbing evidence of execution-style killings by Israeli soldiers.

I think that most who were shot and killed probably had been posing some real or perceived threat to Israeli soldiers, but one also has to understand these situations always create problems. When in the heat of the moment a soldier does not usually have time or at least does not feel as if there is time to discern a legitimate threat from something that merely appears threatening when it is not. Then there are some soldiers who fail to control their emotions in such a situation and commit acts that are not in any way legitimate acts of self-defense.
There is no compelling evidence to base those absurd claims, being shot from close range does not lead us to the conclusion that the person was executed and was not posing a threat during the time he was shot.
Right now the facts as they are do not leave any room for doubt that the persons on board of the ship were indeed posing a threat of life to the soldiers that were intending on investigating the flotilla.

On the same note, yesterday the Islamic Jihad website has published photos it has produced of the IHH "peace activists" that were visiting the Gaza Strip a few days ago, the same organization and some of the same activists as those that have taken part and were pretty much behind the violence against the soldiers on board of the Mavi Marmara ship.
In the photos the activists are seen holding AK-47s and rocket-launchers and other weapons while taking pictures in Hamas' military wing clothes and are praising the anti-Israeli terror movement.

Unsurprising to the objective mind, of course, but should be surprising to those who claim that the "peace activists" on board of the violent Mavi Marmara have not had ill intentions.
Kind of exposing those "peace activists" as the pro-terror bunch that they were known of being.

Turkish 'peace activists' visit Jihad gunmen - Israel News, Ynetnews
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3975976,00.html
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You've already been explained this.
The micro-Uzi is indeed a sidearm and a pistol, your claims here that soldiers were equipped with lethal weapons that are not sidearms while boarding the ship are hence completely detached from reality.
My claim is simply that many have tried to mislead by misrepresenting the exact nature of the weapons soldiers had. What they had was exactly what they would have when repelling from a helicopter. These were also automatic weapons more than sufficient against what they were facing.

There is no compelling evidence to base those absurd claims, being shot from close range does not lead us to the conclusion that the person was executed and was not posing a threat during the time he was shot.
Two of the people who were killed were shot in the head in ways that are most consistent with an execution-style killing. Someone being shot in the back of the head or in the temple is not the kind of wound that gets inflicted normally when it is in self-defense. It is not conclusive evidence, but is certainly compelling.

Right now the facts as they are do not leave any room for doubt that the persons on board of the ship were indeed posing a threat of life to the soldiers that were intending on investigating the flotilla.
The issue is not whether some were, but who was and who wasn't. It would be just plain stupid to claim all of the people on board were posing a threat, it would not even be correct to say that about every person who was killed.

On the same note, yesterday the Islamic Jihad website has published photos it has produced of the IHH "peace activists" that were visiting the Gaza Strip a few days ago, the same organization and some of the same activists as those that have taken part and were pretty much behind the violence against the soldiers on board of the Mavi Marmara ship.
In the photos the activists are seen holding AK-47s and rocket-launchers and other weapons while taking pictures in Hamas' military wing clothes and are praising the anti-Israeli terror movement.

Unsurprising to the objective mind, of course, but should be surprising to those who claim that the "peace activists" on board of the violent Mavi Marmara have not had ill intentions.
Kind of exposing those "peace activists" as the pro-terror bunch that they were known of being.

Turkish 'peace activists' visit Jihad gunmen - Israel News, Ynetnews
Islamic Jihad: Israel exploited photos - Israel News, Ynetnews
Where do you get that these are some of the same activists? Also, liking to dress up and a hold a gun for a photo does not mean you are a blood-thirsty terrorist looking to kill some Israeli soldiers anyway you can.
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,643
Reaction score
30,476
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
While the Israeli military is naturally still defending its actions there was one thing I found interesting:



Source: Irish Times

We all heard how the Israeli soldiers were only armed with pistols for self-defense, but when I read "Uzi" and "machine pistol" I naturally got curious and found the following picture of this machine pistol mentioned:



Apparently it is a common weapon used by Israeli commandos when repelling. Here is a picture of one holding it:



So in fact the Israelis did bring automatic weapons and there was nothing unusual about it. In essence they were not unprepared for anything. They went in intending for it to mainly be a crowd control action, bringing anti-riot weaponry devoted to that purpose, but circumstances led to them using lethal force with the weapons they would normally carry during such an operation. Notably the article only mentions "a" machine pistol, meaning one. Since it was an automatic that explains claims from soldiers of automatic weapons fire on their forces.

Seems my argument of this situation following the typical path of escalation during crackdowns on protests is much stronger.
I wasn't aware that the IDF still fielded any small arms chamber for 7.62 NATO, other than a sniper rifle, which is useless for close quarters combat.

Could this be another one of those articles that intentionally ignores facts to prove...whatever?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
6,193
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
My claim is simply that many have tried to mislead by misrepresenting the exact nature of the weapons soldiers had. What they had was exactly what they would have when repelling from a helicopter. These were also automatic weapons more than sufficient against what they were facing.
I see only one who is attempting to mislead here on anything. Apparently you believe that semi-automatic/automatic weapons are somehow more deadly than a semi weapon, that's ridiculous, a sidearm is a sidearm and no one in the IDF was misleading about the nature of the sidearms as be it a Jericho, micro-Uzi or freakin' akimbo it still is a sidearm.
Soldiers will be equipped with assault rifles whether they are AK-47s or G3s.

Automatic pistols (or machine pistols) are merely more popular amongst special operations units and hostage rescuing units such as the American SWAT.

Two of the people who were killed were shot in the head in ways that are most consistent with an execution-style killing. Someone being shot in the back of the head or in the temple is not the kind of wound that gets inflicted normally when it is in self-defense. It is not conclusive evidence, but is certainly compelling.
A compelling evidence would be a video that strongly suggests a person is being shot while not posing any threat to the life of the soldiers. Merely because he was shot at the back of the head or was shot from close range suggests nothing and hence is not even a compelling evidence, the person might as well have been shot by another soldier from behind while he's posing a threat for a soldier in his front, there's no limit to the possible situations here in which it is not an execution-style killing as you suggest. You are merely playing the guessing game with a notable(to say the least) lean towards a conclusion you desire.

The issue is not whether some were, but who was and who wasn't. It would be just plain stupid to claim all of the people on board were posing a threat, it would not even be correct to say that about every person who was killed.
No one was claiming that all of the people on board of the Mavi Marmara were posing a threat of life to the soldiers, and in fact if that was so there would be way more than 9 dead, perhaps over a 100 dead.
The 9 who have died however are likely to have been posing enough of a threat to be shot to neutralize.

Where do you get that these are some of the same activists?
I believe one of the articles says something about some of them being on board of previous ships, but nevertheless they are all IHH members, the organization that was accused as terror supportive by Israel and the organization whose members were behind the violence on the IHH-led Mavi Marmara.

Also, liking to dress up and a hold a gun for a photo does not mean you are a blood-thirsty terrorist looking to kill some Israeli soldiers anyway you can.
That's ridiculous, taking pictures with Hamas Islamic terrorists praising their actions and holding weapons in Hamas militant clothing is as blood thirsty as it gets.
Those IHH members belong to the most extreme and disgusting types of terror supporters, and from there to becoming actual terrorists the way is very short.
It exposes the true face of the IHH and its members, something that those objective ones who've been objectively looking at the videos produced of the members before and during the ship was boarded could easily tell, yet some have done their best to try to deny.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wasn't aware that the IDF still fielded any small arms chamber for 7.62 NATO, other than a sniper rifle, which is useless for close quarters combat.

Could this be another one of those articles that intentionally ignores facts to prove...whatever?
What facts do you think I am ignoring again? I am not sure what you are getting at.

I see only one who is attempting to mislead here on anything. Apparently you believe that semi-automatic/automatic weapons are somehow more deadly than a semi weapon, that's ridiculous, a sidearm is a sidearm and no one in the IDF was misleading about the nature of the sidearms as be it a Jericho, micro-Uzi or freakin' akimbo it still is a sidearm.
An automatic weapon is generally more deadly than one that isn't. I do not know if the IDF was clear about their nature from the beginning, but what I do know is that the media and several of the posters here kept only referring to them as pistols and implying or outright stating that this meant they were not given much to defend themselves. The fact what they were giving was what they would often carry to defend themselves in such a situation and was an automatic pistol as opposed to a regular pistol does mean a lot.

A compelling evidence would be a video that strongly suggests a person is being shot while not posing any threat to the life of the soldiers.
That would pretty much be conclusive evidence rather than simply compelling. However, there actually was such a video in one case.

Merely because he was shot at the back of the head or was shot from close range suggests nothing and hence is not even a compelling evidence, the person might as well have been shot by another soldier from behind while he's posing a threat for a soldier in his front, there's no limit to the possible situations here in which it is not an execution-style killing as you suggest.
What do you think is more likely? That a soldier who was less than half a meter behind a man who had already been shot twice in the leg needed to blow the guy's brain out to stop him from attacking another soldier in front of him with a knife, or that he was shot in the back of the head in an execution-style killing?

You are merely playing the guessing game with a notable(to say the least) lean towards a conclusion you desire.
What conclusion do you think I desire?

No one was claiming that all of the people on board of the Mavi Marmara were posing a threat of life to the soldiers, and in fact if that was so there would be way more than 9 dead, perhaps over a 100 dead.
The 9 who have died however are likely to have been posing enough of a threat to be shot to neutralize.
Actually it is very likely that at least one was not posing any threat to anyone. Do not just presume that because a person was killed that said person deserved to die. Many people were injured. Did they all deserve to be shot? In these sorts of situations people can be shot accidentally and even die as a result as well as people being shot intentionally due to some misunderstanding. Simply saying the people who were killed were posing a threat is irrational.

I believe one of the articles says something about some of them being on board of previous ships, but nevertheless they are all IHH members, the organization that was accused as terror supportive by Israel and the organization whose members were behind the violence on the IHH-led Mavi Marmara.
Well, find the article. Them being members of IHH proves essentially nothing.

That's ridiculous, taking pictures with Hamas Islamic terrorists praising their actions and holding weapons in Hamas militant clothing is as blood thirsty as it gets.
Those IHH members belong to the most extreme and disgusting types of terror supporters, and from there to becoming actual terrorists the way is very short.
It exposes the true face of the IHH and its members, something that those objective ones who've been objectively looking at the videos produced of the members before and during the ship was boarded could easily tell, yet some have done their best to try to deny.
If dressing up like a soldier and posing with a gun for a picture makes someone a blood-thirsty terrorist then my town must be crawling with blood-thirsty terrorists.
 
Top Bottom