Israelis fired 308 bullets at aid ship

[Mira]

FYI, the official international investigation is underway. It has not been concluded.

Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye on the results.

 

[ecofarm]

Can someone else then, perhaps, tell me that the grandmother thing was about? I googled it and all I got was people's actual grandmothers on actual bicycles.

 

[Mika-El]

Can someone else then, perhaps, tell me that the grandmother thing was about? I googled it and all I got was people's actual grandmothers on actual bicycles.

I wouldn't worry about it. I believe she was being sarcastic. Your points were eloquently explained.

 

[Mira]

Can someone else then, perhaps, tell me that the grandmother thing was about? I googled it and all I got was people's actual grandmothers on actual bicycles.

from an old French saying "et ma grand-mère fait du vélo" in English it would translate to something like "yeah, right, whatever".

hope this helps

 

[Mika-El]

Well the point is and I wish to reiterate it whether we defend Israel's actions or feel they were excessive, no one wants to see violent confrontations on either side.

I personally do not feel forcing the issue as it was done with that ship could do anything but incite a violent reaction. Other ships have done the same thing and no violence ensued.

I myself encourage people to engage in non violent political displays not ones they know or ought to know could provoke violence.

The bottom line is the status quo in Gaza continues and innocent civilians are feeling the brunt because of Hamas' and Intifadah's continued agenda.

I personally do not believe the average Gaza citizen has any control over either and is being held hostage by them. I deplore the violent agendas of Hamas and Intifadah but I truly regret the current state of existence for Gaza citizens trapped in a limited society of no future and dire circumstance.

Until a peaceful solution to Gaza is achieved, I would argue, the creation of Israel is not fully achieved.

I believe Israel can not be truly completed until it finds a way to live peacefully side by side Arab peoples. That is a particular Zionist concept I was taught-that Zionism envisioned a peaceful coexistence with Arab peoples not a continuing war with them.

I know it is not a vision many believe Zionists have but I would argue I believe the majority of Israelis and Zionists feel this way. I do not think in our hearts we dreamed of a time when Palestinians would have to continue to suffer as they do. It was not the intent of our starting a state. It was not the reason the people of Israel came to be and choose to be.

 

[Demon of Light]

I already noted the difference, as I see it its not considerable.

I think it is very considerable. Most people would I believe.

First thing they taught us in boot camp is to forget from the full auto mode in our assault rifle this mode is nice for hollywood movies but its not practical for use, I find it very hard to believe they used this mode on the ship and that leaves us with a semi-auto 9mm pistol, no different than the Jeriho... they even share the same cartridges..

There is still a difference. A Jericho is all single shots as I understand. Even when not in Full-auto the Micro-Uzi can fire short bursts of several rounds.

I agree with your assesment that this could be the reason the soldiers encountered automatic fire from the passengers, if this is the case it can also explain multiple gunshot wounds on the person who used the snatched pistol

Do we know who that person was?

They don't spray an area, the weapon is mostly used in a semi-auto mode especially in close combat, and you actually can spray an area with a typical handgun.
Bottom line, if they wanted to go crazy and shoot everywhere, they could do it with either a jericho or a micro-Uzi or any other type of sidearm.

Spraying an area is much more effective when you are firing more than a single shot every second.

Exactly, it would be like saying that they've carried an assault rifle without saying whether it is an AK-47, a G3, an M16, etc.

I was not limiting it to assault rifles. That was the point. If someone simply said a person had a rifle would you just assume it was an assault rifle?

There is no misleading here, it seems like you're desperately trying to hang onto absurd and non-existent details to comfort yourself when you know that the IDF has not lied about anything.

I did not accuse the IDF of anything. I only noted that the term "pistol" was left unqualified resulting to misleading statements.

If it is compelling it is compelling and if it is conclusive it is conclusive, and what you claim to be "evidence" is, as I've shown with my examples, neither conclusive nor compelling. One cannot even favor one conclusion over another from the knowledge that a person was shot from close range in the back.

You certainly can because the probability of it being something other than an execution-style killing is lower. Of course, you already favor one conclusion over another anyone despite saying otherwise.

I don't know what you're talking about, or more likely what video you're talking about. I've seen no video where a person is being shown as he is shot on the Mavi Marmara, so please unless such video does not exist and you're merely making up evidence to try and base your ridiculous claims do post this video.

Actually the soldiers have claimed that they were being shot at with assault rifles, and in the Eiland committee conclusion it was mentioned that due to the wounds in the soldiers' bodies and to objects that were left on board of the ship it seems that 2 assault rifles were indeed brought on the ship by the activists, used against the soldiers, and thrown once the violence was close to an end.

The officer mentioned in the article in my first post did not say anything about assault rifles. If there were any credibility to the claim it would have certainly been mentioned. As far as the claim of being shot at with assault rifles, I think a soldier could very easily confuse that with one individual firing a snatched machine pistol.

It is actually very easy to see as I've explained before, there are countless of possible situations when this happens, and we were speaking on likely situations so this is one of them.

It is far from the most likely explanation, however.

That's quite ridiculous, it is you who are arguing that they were executed while it is me who is leaving all possibilities open.

You said the people on board who were killed most likely deserved it. Together with everything else you have said it is clear you are not really leaving anything open. I am not stating it as a certainty, only noting it is more likely given the evidence.

I'm still waiting for this evidence, as explained above you have no such evidence.

Multiple eyewitness testimonies mention a person pointing a camera at soldiers who was shot in the head. A journalist on board who has taken photos for news organizations in the past was shot in between the eyes. All these facts together suggest very much that at least this one person had not posed any threat to soldiers but was shot.

Actually they have no sane reason to shoot their own leg like that by going against Islamist anti-Israeli propaganda such as the one surrounding the flotilla, they removed the pictures and articles a short time after uploading them to their website and have got angry at YNET for exposing those pictures.
Besides that those are authentic pictures, and the ones shown in them are indeed Turkish activists from the IHH.

It is interesting to see however how you go from one argument to another once the former is being destroyed, instead of simply accepting the truth.

You haven't destroyed any argument. You claimed that Islamic Jihad described a meeting with people from IHH as a meeting between the two organizations. I said they have plenty of reason to claim that them meeting some people from IHH was some inter-group meeting. I also noted that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for them to meet with the major organizations in Gaza as part of their humanitarian duties.

Well as it was explained to you by praising the terrorist organization of Hamas, holding weapons of Hamas, wearing clothes of Hamas and taking pictures with Hamas soldiers, those people are most likely pro-Hamas, pro-terrrorist, and due to their words in their praising of Hamas' actions, blood-thirsty animals, nothing less and nothing more.

That is not even remotely rational. Supporting a group they see as resisting a criminal occupation does not make them "blood-thirsty animals" regardless of them liking to pose for a picture.

It exposes the true agenda behind the IHH which was also behind the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara, an agenda that was obvious to Israel all the time yet was constantly and strongly denied by the anti-Israeli propaganda machine.

You keep trying to claim some agenda, which you have no ability to prove, and yet accuse me of not having an open mind.

That has to be the silliest comparison I've ever seen. I mean, what? Because they're wearing soldiers' uniforms (American soldiers most likely) then it means they support Hamas? What the ****?

Way to completely miss the point. It was not about supporting Hamas, but whether liking to play soldier for the cameras makes you a "blood-thirsty terrorist" as you claimed here. All it tells me is that these particular individuals strongly support the various groups fighting Israel. You try to twist that around to say it means they are violent blood-thirsty animals and that it reflects on the entire organization, including those who participated in the flotilla. It is guilt by association.

Your constant attempts to deceive and mislead about the IDF words and intentions happen to be quite desperate as they depend entirely on your willing to believe that the IDF has misled about its soldiers' equipment when indeed they have not.

If you look back at the original post I only claimed that people were saying this and made clear I was talking about the media and people on this forum. That the article mentioned a general saying what kind of pistol means I am obviously not suggesting the IDF lied or attempted to deceive anyone.

To be clear, I am not even suggesting any misleading or deception was intentional, merely that people seized on the word pistol to claim something very different than reality.

You apparently lack any military experience or knowledge beyond social chattering, and have missed the point. Being full-auto does not make a weapon more lethal. Given the same number of bullets and even double-tapping, I'd kill two or three times as many people as a spray in very few additional seconds.

I did say that I am not a gun person, but that is really beside the point here. A single bullet in many places of the body can kill a person, even if not instantly. An automatic weapon can get more bullets in more people more quickly.

If you want to kill people, and kill them fast... you semi-auto well-aimed shots (or three-round bursts).

Such bursts are still more than what could be done with a regular pistol.

Sprays don't kill a large number of people per bullet. Full-auto is for supressive fire. In a military environment, it is defensive. A commando doesn't put his hand only around and hose a hallway each time he turns a corner, and he doesn't spray a target-rich environment (thus wasting valuable bullets).

When dealing with crowd control a spray would prove very useful. Accurate single shots are less likely to control a crowd than a spray of bullets. By making this about "terrorists" and soldiers you lose sight of the fact this was about cracking down on a protest action. Instead of thinking of it simply as a military operation you have to view it in the same context you would view anti-riot actions.

Sure, close quarters called for a small weapon but a bigger punch should have been carried on-board. I still say they were under-armed.

As I said they were given exactly what they would be given even if the operation involved a repelling operation onto a military ship. Given that these weapons were automatics they were certainly not under-armed.

 

[ecofarm]

Given that these weapons were automatics they were certainly not under-armed.

Given that they almost lost the fight, they certainly were.

 

[Demon of Light]

Given that they almost lost the fight, they certainly were.

What on earth are you talking about? How did they "almost lose the fight" in any way?

 

[ecofarm]

Facing dozens they were totally detached from a man (the one taken downstairs and the one thrown down a deck are the same?), lost control of a weapon to the enemy and (all?) suffered injuries. One more lost weapon or a couple more bad things and soldiers would start dying. If one or two die, that's it for the rest because of the weapons gained each kill. That's close enough to losing for me to say that they needed more firepower. As I wrote before, the birds should have provided supressive but they feared press from people like you.

 

[Demon of Light]

Facing dozens they were totally detached from a man (the one taken downstairs and the one thrown down a deck are the same?), lost control of a weapon to the enemy and (all?) suffered injuries. One more lost weapon or a couple more bad things and soldiers would start dying. If one or two die, that's it for the rest because of the weapons gained each kill. That's close enough to losing for me to say that they needed more firepower. As I wrote before, the birds should have provided supressive but they feared press from people like you.

As I understand they sent in a sizable number of soldiers. Ultimately the initial actions resulted in what you are talking about and initially the soldiers were not free to use lethal force. Once they were it quickly became a lop-sided fight.

 

[ecofarm]

As I understand they sent in a sizable number of soldiers. Ultimately the initial actions resulted in what you are talking about and initially the soldiers were not free to use lethal force. Once they were it quickly became a lop-sided fight.

Who's initial actions caused what?

According to IDF analysis of the video documenting the takeover, "the fourth commando saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. He jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the gun wielding activist, 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck".[121] According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with knives, slingshots, spikes, and clubs, and with pistols that were seized from Israeli commandos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Mavi_Marmara_boarding



The UN report should show that non-uzi 9mm jackets were found.

 

[Demon of Light]

Who's initial actions caused what?


Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The UN report should show that non-uzi 9mm jackets were found.

The IDF claims the individual holding the gun had taken it from another soldier. In fact I found this Haaretz article concerning Ashkenazi's testimony that seems to shed more light on the subject:

Ashkenazi said passengers grabbed three Glock handguns and an Uzi machine pistol from commandos whom they overpowered.

If some of these Israeli soldiers had Glocks it might explain the claim that 9mm rounds not typically used by Israel were found on board.

 

[Apocalypse]

Spraying an area is much more effective when you are firing more than a single shot every second.

Well first not knowing what an Uzi looks like then claiming that micro-Uzi is not a pistol/sidearm and now this. It really seems like you hold zero knowledge over anything to do with military, weapons, etc.

Spraying would actually always be an ineffective target as by constantly holding your finger down on the trigger you'd hit anything but your aimed target.
Even when one is using a weapon on full-auto mode he does not "spray bullets" but rather shoots directed bursts of fire.

I was not limiting it to assault rifles. That was the point. If someone simply said a person had a rifle would you just assume it was an assault rifle?

I would assume it was a rifle. Likewise, if someone said he has a pistol, I would assume he has a pistol. What kind of silly question is that? What kind of silly thread is that, really?

I did not accuse the IDF of anything. I only noted that the term "pistol" was left unqualified resulting to misleading statements.

Since it turned out that pistols were indeed used, some of those are micro-Uzis and some of those are other pistols, then it seems like you were simply misleading.

You certainly can because the probability of it being something other than an execution-style killing is lower.

The only reason why you claim that this is the higher probability is because you favor this conclusion over anything else.

Hilarious. That is your "compelling evidence"? A badly edited video where one can see two soldiers standing on a balcony one of them holding a paintball rifle and the other is not armed and they apparently kill a person that you don't even see at the same moment? What the ****? And I've also asked you to refer to an evidence that a renowned news media source depends on, where is that?

As weak as I thought your argument was before, the feeling was now multiplied by a billion times. What a waste of my time.

The officer mentioned in the article in my first post did not say anything about assault rifles. If there were any credibility to the claim it would have certainly been mentioned. As far as the claim of being shot at with assault rifles, I think a soldier could very easily confuse that with one individual firing a snatched machine pistol.

That's from the soldiers' testimony that were given a day after the incident. They say that about when they've boarded the ship they came under fire from live ammunition, they've then noticed the source of fire is from under the stairs, and they've seen the barrel of an assault rifle popping out from there, so they've fired at the spot and hit the man.

And the Eiland committee, as I said, also found traces of 2 assault rifles.

It is far from the most likely explanation, however.

Not at all, it's actually one of the more likely explanations.

You said the people on board who were killed most likely deserved it. Together with everything else you have said it is clear you are not really leaving anything open. I am not stating it as a certainty, only noting it is more likely given the evidence.

I was actually saying that according to the evidence it seems like they were indeed posing one threat or another, as I've seen from the videos released; every one of the activists who can be seen in the video on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara is engaging in violence against the soldiers, the rest of the Mavi Marmara crew seems to have been within the ship.

Multiple eyewitness testimonies mention a person pointing a camera at soldiers who was shot in the head.

Eyewitness testimonies mostly refers to the claims of those who can be seen engaging in violence on board of the ship.

A journalist on board who has taken photos for news organizations in the past was shot in between the eyes.

Doesn't say anything about intent.

All these facts together suggest very much that at least this one person had not posed any threat to soldiers but was shot.

Those two facts (that the violent activists have claimed this and that the bullet has hit him between the eyes) are far from being enough to base a case on the intention of the soldiers. That is why I'm saying that you're clearly favoring one conclusion over anything else.

You haven't destroyed any argument. You claimed that Islamic Jihad described a meeting with people from IHH as a meeting between the two organizations. I said they have plenty of reason to claim that them meeting some people from IHH was some inter-group meeting. I also noted that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for them to meet with the major organizations in Gaza as part of their humanitarian duties.

Yes, and when you've realized that none of those claims can make any sense, you've moved on to another attempt instead of admitting to the obvious reality, that this meeting was between a terrorist organization and an organization that supports it.

That is not even remotely rational. Supporting a group they see as resisting a criminal occupation does not make them "blood-thirsty animals" regardless of them liking to pose for a picture.

It doesn't matter what their opinions on the conflict are, when they support a terrorist group they become terrorist supporters. They took pictures with terrorists praising their terrorism and the brutal murders of innocent Israeli civilians as "noble resistance", they're indeed a bunch of blood-thirsty terror-supporting animals, they and anyone who identifies with their kind of thinking and beliefs.

You keep trying to claim some agenda, which you have no ability to prove

The evidence I've displayed above of the pictures taken by the terror-supporting IHH members is enough to base this agenda ten times over. It was of course pretty obvious from the beginning that the IHH are a bunch of terror-supporting radicals, as it was found by the Danish institute for research over 14 years ago and as it was claimed by Israel and others also quite some years ago, yet after the flotilla and now after these pictures and statements it is really no longer arguable that they are not supportive of terrorists.

Way to completely miss the point. It was not about supporting Hamas, but whether liking to play soldier for the cameras makes you a "blood-thirsty terrorist" as you claimed here.

Awful straw-man argument there buddy, I have never claimed that liking to play a soldier equals to supporting terrorism, I've claimed that praising Hamas' actions and that taking pictures with Hamas terrorists in Hamas militant clothes and holding Hamas' weapons are all conclusive signs of a strong and radical support for terrorism.

All it tells me is that these particular individuals strongly support the various groups fighting Israel.

It doesn't really matter what it tells you specifically, but what it tells the objective mind and the thinking mind when a person shows support for terrorism and the acts of murder of innocents. You specifically could see it any way you want to, the objective person sees it as a blood-thirst, inhumanity and radical agendas.

It really depends on what the person sees in the organization that is being supported here and in its actions that are being praised.
If one sees Hamas as a resistance organization that "fights the Zionist occupation over Palestinian lands" and sees Hamas' brutal murders of Jewish innocent civilians as resistance then yes, he would claim that this is merely a support for a resistance organization.

Likewise, were one to see al-Qaeda as a resistance organization that "fights the American occupation over Muslim lands" and sees its brutal murders of American civilians as an act of noble resistance to said occupation, then he would find the support of such organization to be rational and just.

An objective mind in both cases however would recognize that a support for terrorist attacks and terrorist organizations is something that only a blood-thirsty animal could take to, a person who strives for the blood of innocents from a specific nationality, a person who supports terrorists organizations such as Hamas and al-Qaeda.

If you look back at the original post I only claimed that people were saying this and made clear I was talking about the media and people on this forum. That the article mentioned a general saying what kind of pistol means I am obviously not suggesting the IDF lied or attempted to deceive anyone.

To be clear, I am not even suggesting any misleading or deception was intentional, merely that people seized on the word pistol to claim something very different than reality.

The IDF claimed they've brought pistols, what one thinks of when he sees pistol matters not to the fact that it is a pistol, just like what one thinks of when he sees the words "assault rifle" matters not to the fact that it is an assault rifle.
An assault rifle can be an automatic weapon and it can be a single fire rate weapon, yet this changes not the fact that an assault rifle is still an assault rifle.
Likewise, a pistol can be a single fire rate weapon and it can be an automatic weapon, it matters not to the fact that it is a pistol.

Since knowing whether the assault rifle was being used on automatic mode or on a single fire rate mode or on semi-auto mode etc matters not to the knowledge of the person over what kind of weapon was brought on, so is the knowledge over whether a pistol being brought is on automatic mode, semi-automatic mode, single fire rate mode etc. For that reason this thread is quite a needless one that suffices us with no further knowledge at all on the incident beyond the facts that were already published. Knowing that a weapon was used on auto-mode or on semi-auto mode does not deal with the intent of the user and hence is meaningless. A person could take down 100 people with a single-fire rate weapon such as the G3 assault rifle and he could do the same with an automatic type weapon such as the AK-47 assault rifle.

 

[ido_]

I think it is very considerable. Most people would I believe.

Because most people do not understand the difference between the two pistols.

There is still a difference. A Jericho is all single shots as I understand. Even when not in Full-auto the Micro-Uzi can fire short bursts of several rounds.

there are only 3 modes in an Uzi: Safe, Semi Auto and Full Auto, no bursts mode, I never ran into a weapon with a burst mode like the US military has in Israel.
now with a rate of fire of 1700 rounds per minute you can pretty much understand that even if you'll squeeze the trigger for half a second you will release 14 rounds so in order to fire a short burst with Full Auto you'll have to have super hero instincts.

Do we know who that person was?

I hope the UN inquiry will tell us and shed light on all the deaths

 

[Demon of Light]

Well first not knowing what an Uzi looks like then claiming that micro-Uzi is not a pistol/sidearm and now this. It really seems like you hold zero knowledge over anything to do with military, weapons, etc.

While I already said I am not a gun person you are once more playing your little game of claiming I said things I didn't and taking the rest out of context. I did not say the micro-Uzi was not a pistol or sidearm at any point. What I said was simply that it is not the kind of pistol a person normally thinks of when hearing about someone using a pistol. The micro-Uzi is basically a little sub-machine gun, which is definitely not the image conjured by most people when hearing the word "pistol" used.

Spraying would actually always be an ineffective target as by constantly holding your finger down on the trigger you'd hit anything but your aimed target.

Assuming you were aiming at just one target. Ecofarm, I believe, noted that full-auto was meant as suppressing fire and with crowd control it amounts to crowd suppression. To put it simply, firing randomly into a crowd or maybe over a crowd increases the chances of the crowd dispersing as opposed to single shots.

I would assume it was a rifle.

What kind of rifle? There is more than one kind of rifle. Do you see what I am getting at?

Since it turned out that pistols were indeed used, some of those are micro-Uzis and some of those are other pistols, then it seems like you were simply misleading.

One source only mentioned a machine pistol, while another mentioned other kinds of pistols as well. However, failing to distinguish between one type pistol and another type does mislead. I noted my mistake as soon I found it, whereas you insist that your usage of the term was completely legitimate and not misleading at all even after it has been pointed out to you.

The only reason why you claim that this is the higher probability is because you favor this conclusion over anything else.

The reason I say it is a higher probability is because I do not have to jump through hoops to come up with possible excuses. Given that eyewitnesses said there were execution-style killings the fact autopsies point that way is very compelling.

Hilarious. That is your "compelling evidence"? A badly edited video where one can see two soldiers standing on a balcony one of them holding a paintball rifle and the other is not armed and they apparently kill a person that you don't even see at the same moment?

You can see the two soldiers kicking at something under them. I doubt they were just kicking the ground. Also, I did not say that was the compelling evidence, only that there was a video which suggests an execution-style killing. That one of the soldiers appears to be holding a paintball rifle does not mean the person wasn't killed. In fact, if the person was right underfoot then it is very likely the person who was shot died as a result. Either way it was not being used in a manner consistent with non-lethal force.

That's from the soldiers' testimony that were given a day after the incident. They say that about when they've boarded the ship they came under fire from live ammunition, they've then noticed the source of fire is from under the stairs, and they've seen the barrel of an assault rifle popping out from there, so they've fired at the spot and hit the man.

And the Eiland committee, as I said, also found traces of 2 assault rifles.

I am not find any mention of this anywhere else. All I find is that people on the ship took "assault rifles" from the soldiers and threw them overboard. Any mention of them coming under live fire references a person on board who had seized one of the Micro-Uzis. You should be aware that initial testimony is not entirely reliable, especially when it concerns things that happen very quickly.

Not at all, it's actually one of the more likely explanations.

More likely than my explanation you mean. Never mind the explanation I gave is corroborated by eyewitness testimony and seemingly corroborated by video evidence.

I was actually saying that according to the evidence it seems like they were indeed posing one threat or another, as I've seen from the videos released; every one of the activists who can be seen in the video on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara is engaging in violence against the soldiers, the rest of the Mavi Marmara crew seems to have been within the ship.

Do you mean the IDF's selectively edited video that only shows part of the confrontation?

Eyewitness testimonies mostly refers to the claims of those who can be seen engaging in violence on board of the ship.

How could you possibly know such a thing? Also, one could consider seizing a weapon to be violent even if you only dismantle the weapon or toss it after taking it.

Those two facts (that the violent activists have claimed this and that the bullet has hit him between the eyes) are far from being enough to base a case on the intention of the soldiers. That is why I'm saying that you're clearly favoring one conclusion over anything else.

I was not talking about the intent of the soldiers there, but whether the individual who was shot "deserved" it as you imply all the people who were killed did.

Yes, and when you've realized that none of those claims can make any sense, you've moved on to another attempt instead of admitting to the obvious reality, that this meeting was between a terrorist organization and an organization that supports it.

The fact is humanitarian organizations have to work with certain groups on occasion to insure they can carry out their duties. It is also a fact that IHH and Turkey have gotten a lot of support from the Islamic world for their work concerning Gaza so claiming a meeting with said organization based on meeting people who work for it, who may very well not have any capacity to represent the organization, increases the public image of Islamic Jihad. No matter how you look at it your claim that this means IHH supports terrorism or terrorist organizations is by itself fallacious. To make the even bigger leap that it means the rest of the people who work for the organization will engage in premeditated violence for political ends is just absurd.

It doesn't matter what their opinions on the conflict are, when they support a terrorist group they become terrorist supporters.

I get that you like this black-and-white portrayal of the conflict, but it just is not that simple. We in the U.S. hail the Sons of Liberty as American heroes and praise their efforts, but many things they did would be considered terrorism. The African National Congress orchestrated acts of terrorism during Apartheid including some that resulted in deaths of civilians. If you want to claim anyone who praises those organizations are blood-thirsty animals go right on ahead.

The evidence I've displayed above of the pictures taken by the terror-supporting IHH members is enough to base this agenda ten times over.

No, it really is not. Many Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. have supported the KKK over the years. That in no way meant all Democrats or all Republicans were racist KKK supporters or that the parties in general supported them.

Awful straw-man argument there buddy, I have never claimed that liking to play a soldier equals to supporting terrorism,

That is what these individuals were doing.

You specifically could see it any way you want to, the objective person sees it as a blood-thirst, inhumanity and radical agendas.

Save for things symptomatic of a literal thirst for blood the "objective person" would not talk about anything indicating a thirst for blood.

Because most people do not understand the difference between the two pistols.

I am not seeing anything indicating the Jericho has an automatic mode so yeah there is a pretty big difference.

there are only 3 modes in an Uzi: Safe, Semi Auto and Full Auto, no bursts mode, I never ran into a weapon with a burst mode like the US military has in Israel.
now with a rate of fire of 1700 rounds per minute you can pretty much understand that even if you'll squeeze the trigger for half a second you will release 14 rounds so in order to fire a short burst with Full Auto you'll have to have super hero instincts.

I read that it does have a burst mode, but no matter.

 

[ido_]

I am not seeing anything indicating the Jericho has an automatic mode so yeah there is a pretty big difference.

As already explained to you full-auto has no use but to suppressive fire, you can stand 25 meters from a target and shoot full auto, you'll be lucky to hit a round.

I read that it does have a burst mode, but no matter.

And I held one in my hand, but hey you already made clear that "reading somewhere" is more reliable than witnessing something with your own eyes.

 

[Apocalypse]

While I already said I am not a gun person you are once more playing your little game of claiming I said things I didn't and taking the rest out of context. I did not say the micro-Uzi was not a pistol or sidearm at any point. What I said was simply that it is not the kind of pistol a person normally thinks of when hearing about someone using a pistol. The micro-Uzi is basically a little sub-machine gun, which is definitely not the image conjured by most people when hearing the word "pistol" used.

It's fine and dandy to admit to not being a "gun person" and hence not holding any knowledge over guns and weapons, but the problem is that you keep trying to argue about those positions even though you admit to not being in a position to argue about them. Instead of asking questions, you are claiming things are such and such without being open to the facts themselves when being confronted.

Assuming you were aiming at just one target. Ecofarm, I believe, noted that full-auto was meant as suppressing fire and with crowd control it amounts to crowd suppression. To put it simply, firing randomly into a crowd or maybe over a crowd increases the chances of the crowd dispersing as opposed to single shots.

Ineffective in the situation of close combat as it counts as indiscriminate fire and hence would cause soldier casualties and deaths.

What kind of rifle? There is more than one kind of rifle. Do you see what I am getting at?

Yes, I do, and it's ridiculous.
Let's now draw a comparison, a pisol can be automatic and it can be semi-automatic and it can be a single-firing rate pistol, right? So let's assume an army says its soldiers were armed with assault rifles. Does it matter whether the assault rifle was a single-firing type G3 or a semi-auto M16 or an automatic Galil? No it does not, not even by the least. Which is why this thread is quite the pointless one, even in the surrounding of this forum.

One source only mentioned a machine pistol, while another mentioned other kinds of pistols as well. However, failing to distinguish between one type pistol and another type does mislead. I noted my mistake as soon I found it, whereas you insist that your usage of the term was completely legitimate and not misleading at all even after it has been pointed out to you.

At no part did the IDF claim that all pistols were non-automatic, at no part did the IDF really mislead or cause a misleading with its words. What people may or may not think of when hearing the name pistol matters not to the fact that no misleading was actually being done, to claim so would be ridiculously absurd.

The reason I say it is a higher probability is because I do not have to jump through hoops to come up with possible excuses. Given that eyewitnesses said there were execution-style killings the fact autopsies point that way is very compelling.

You do jump through hoops, and indeed your argument here is bizarre and has had no logical basis. Besides that the autopsies do not point towards one intention or another, and the eyewitnesses are biased and cannot be regarded to as objective, they are also contradicted by the testimonies from the opposite party so that just makes the depending on one of the violence-involved parties' "testimonies" even more ridiculous than it is.

You can see the two soldiers kicking at something under them. I doubt they were just kicking the ground. Also, I did not say that was the compelling evidence, only that there was a video which suggests an execution-style killing. That one of the soldiers appears to be holding a paintball rifle does not mean the person wasn't killed. In fact, if the person was right underfoot then it is very likely the person who was shot died as a result. Either way it was not being used in a manner consistent with non-lethal force.

The person was holding a paintball rifle, a non-lethal weapon that has caused none of the deaths on board of the ship. According to the autopsies, they were all killed by live bullets. Secondly we do not see a person and do not know what happen there and what is the situation, we merely see two soldiers, one of them armed with a non-lethal weapon and the other unarmed. For someone to claim that this video "strongly suggests an execution of an nonthreatening individual" he would have to be insanely subjective and insanely biased and as I said this took your credibility from minus one hundred to under minus one zillion. I have to say that while I was actually expecting you to come up with some ridiculous video and claim that it shows execution in it, I did not expect this.

You were however claiming that you have compelling evidence that a person was executed while he was not posing a threat of life on board of the Mavi Marmara ship. Where is it then?

The fact is humanitarian organizations have to work with certain groups on occasion to insure they can carry out their duties. It is also a fact that IHH and Turkey have gotten a lot of support from the Islamic world for their work concerning Gaza so claiming a meeting with said organization based on meeting people who work for it, who may very well not have any capacity to represent the organization, increases the public image of Islamic Jihad. No matter how you look at it your claim that this means IHH supports terrorism or terrorist organizations is by itself fallacious. To make the even bigger leap that it means the rest of the people who work for the organization will engage in premeditated violence for political ends is just absurd.

These fellas were sent by the IHH, on behalf of the IHH, and funded by the IHH into the Gaza Strip to meet Hamas. In their diplmoatic meeting they have shown conclusive and unchallenged signs of support for terrorism, which strengthens the claim (since the 90's really) by Israel and others that the IHH is indeed a terror-funding and terror-supporting organization. It is defined so by its actions.
Its members are hence members of a terror-supporting organization, and I did not claim that it causes them to engage in premeditated violence (even though they did) but rather that their obvious and clear support for terrorism and murder of innocents of a specific nationality explains such violence.

I get that you like this black-and-white portrayal of the conflict, but it just is not that simple. We in the U.S. hail the Sons of Liberty as American heroes and praise their efforts, but many things they did would be considered terrorism. The African National Congress orchestrated acts of terrorism during Apartheid including some that resulted in deaths of civilians. If you want to claim anyone who praises those organizations are blood-thirsty animals go right on ahead.

They are defined by their actions. Was an American citizen to dress in al-Qaeda militant uniform hold an AK-47 and praise 9/11 as a glorious and noble resistance action as he's taking pictures with actual and real al-Qaeda terrorist militants, then he would just as well be considered to be a terrorist-supporter and a blood-thirsty animal, no exceptions there. You may find such action by an American citizen to imply otherwise, but this speaks more of your specific morality rather than of the objective human being's.

No, it really is not. Many Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. have supported the KKK over the years. That in no way meant all Democrats or all Republicans were racist KKK supporters or that the parties in general supported them.

Were the Democrats/Republicans to send their representatives on an official mission to a KKK base and then those representatives would wear the KKK blanket, hold a weapon and take pictures with KKK members, praising their killings of black people as noble and righteous then sure, such parties would indeed be recognized as supportive of the KKK. This was never the case though. That's the difference between acting as individuals and acting as representatives.

That is what these individuals were doing.

You're the only one here who's comparing between taking pictures with terrorists while wearing their uniforms holding their weapons and praising their murderous actions to merely wearing the uniform of an American soldier. This suggests insane immorality on your side and nothing more than that.

Save for things symptomatic of a literal thirst for blood the "objective person" would not talk about anything indicating a thirst for blood.

Praising murder is quite blood thirsty IMO, those are 100% purely blood-thirsty animals. They and anyone who shares their views on terrorism and the murder of innocent Jewish civilians.