[eskachig]

Originally Posted by VonHesse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584...deastn_africa/

Had a feeling it was going to end this way. It's always the way it ends when people without guns try to stand up against people with guns.

Well, yes. When a group of people without guns attacks a group of people with guns usually some people get shot. Pretty sure that if you had a gun, you would not allow someone to beat you to death over principle. Double so if you have a mission to follow through and your mates in trouble.

Oh, and the contraband worth killing over...?

Nobody was trying to kill anyone over contraband. Contraband is worth boarding over, not killing. Unconscious comrades bleeding on the ground and a mob with weapons is worth killing over.

Originally Posted by msxyz

I mean, even if nobody thought that a merry band of pacifists and activists would have triggered such a hostile response, the least any country would do is to stop the ships in their NATIONAL waters and have them searched.

It's not practical to enforce a blockade within national waters, as international waters are within speedboat range. If you let ships park twelve miles off-shore, it becomes virtually impossible to interdict the cargo.

Which is why pretty much every other blockade ever has been carried out in international waters.

And if it's true that the ships were boarded in international waters, resistance by the ship crew and occupants is justified.

Look, regardless of the legality of the situation - armed resistance against a military unit will probably result in your death, and that's true everywhere. Soldiers aren't lawyers. What's more, armed resistance against a military force means you're not a civilian. Yes, if a nation is invading yours without UN sanction, that is possibly illegal. But their soldiers shooting you when you come at them with a hunting rifle is not.

Originally Posted by msxyz

Not smart on the Isreali part to send battle hardened commandos. These guys are like watchdogs trained to shot first and ask question later. When you're mentally conditioned to survive by sheer brute force in a hostile envirnment you don't mix well with any stress situation that requires thinking BEFORE acting. They just act like dumb, albeit very efficient, biological robots.

You don't understand the realities of either police work or modern military operations. Both are trained to overcome the adrenalin dump of combat and retain judgement and rationality - but soldiers even more so as they face those situations more and the stakes are higher. They have different set of tactical skills, and police work puts a stronger emphasis on people skills and conflict prevention - but in this case nobody got a chance to talk anyway.

They should have used policemen who are better trained to deal with protesters, riots, etc...

What would the cops do, take a longer beating? I think the soldiers should've shot sooner. It's not their job to debate why they are being sent into that situation, and once an angry mob is beating you and your buddies to a pulp and giving every indication of murderous intent, it's time for a lethal response.

Say what you want about the Israelis, but had they not been met with violence this would've been a non-incident, like the five boardings before it.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Then it all was pointless for Israel to begin with. And they're in a heap of trouble. From what I've heard and been reading, the Israelis opened fire with the paintball guns they had on the humanitarian aid workers and injured a few of them, then were stormed by the rest. The Turks on board were screaming at them not to shoot because they were "raising the white flag!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10199480.stm

Well that must excuse it. After all, if I break into your house and shoot you with a beanbag gun before racking up the buckshot after you hit me with a chair, it's you that's in the wrong...

I think the videos of the incident put that little theory to rest. The first soldier, and a few after him never got a chance to draw any weapons.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

But even from a kind of pro-Israel point of view, if they go in and bunch of guys start wielding batongs to defend against attackers, the decision to use lethal force is a big step to take. The commandos could have jumped overboard once the trouble started, I don't think one ship is worth dying/killing for. Or even worth using non-lethal force.

Non-lethal options are usually better at preventing violence, or as a preemptive action. In close combat with hand weapons they are generally ineffective. Oh, and jumping off means leaving your people behind to the tender mercies of a rampaging mob.