The pic is in reference to the beatdown some IDF soldiers got when they tried to raid a Gaza-bound flotilla.
You can check out this video below:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo[/youtube]
Fast-Roping 101 – How Not To Raid A Flotilla
MIL-STD-
Comments
33 responses to “Fast-Roping 101 – How Not To Raid A Flotilla”
At 0:53, it looks like one of the IDF is wielding a paintball gun? Even if this is a “Dog The Bounty Hunter(tm) CS Paintball Gun”, when you are getting beat on with metal rods, I think it is time for deadly force. Besides, it looks like the doodes on the boat are wearing gas masks. Usually the IDF doesn’t do things so poorly planned.
Wow, I see the hopper!…considering that Israel considered the .22lr caliber less than lethal at some point, using pepperballs is really nice of them…maybe they should have went in with cattle prods =P
I’m pretty sure they were using Capsaicin “PepperBall” as a non-lethal solution. But yeah… fast roping into a crowd? Not a good idea.
I’d also not heard of the International vs. Territorial water thing. They should have waited until the flotilla crossed over…
they should of had some type of alternate covering support available, sorry when I see my friends being beat on like that its time to give some proper application of suppressive fire to the event…
The frustrating thing is this incident is being talked about as though Israel did something wrong. It seems fairly apparent that they dealt with this situation with an amazing amount of restraint
How far do you think a ship entering our (or any other develped country’s) international waters without clearance would make it.
I am willing to bet it would be a smoking hulk in short order.
“our international waters” is an oxymoron. If you’re not within the territorial water claims of a certain country (usually 12 nautical miles from the shore, sometimes more, sometimes less), that country has no jurisdiction or power over you.
Israel claims 12 nautical miles of territory from its shore as its territorial waters. The Israelis that boarded the flotilla were outside this 12-mile zone and as such were outside their jurisdiction and did not have the authority to board the flotilla. Had the flotilla crossed into Israeli territorial waters the Israelis could have done what they wanted, but to forcibly board a foreign vessel in international waters is nothing short of an act of war.
There are rules to be followed, and Israel is not above the law.
It was very clear that this ship was headed there with every intention of committing an act deemed illegal by a sovereign nation. There is absolutely no sensible reason they should have waited.
You seem to be implying that a sovereign nation has no duty to abide by international laws. If it deems something illegal, or legal, for that matter, then that is all that counts? By that logic, if the sovereign nation of Iraq deems it legal to produce or to amass weapons of mass destruction, then there is no legal authority to stop them from doing so. They are, after all, a sovereign nation, with the ability to make their own laws.
International law is an illusion. It is simply a collection of lovely notions agreed upon by friendly nations, when those nations change their notions the law changes. When the power dynamic changes the law changes. When there is a war the law changes…there is no force of international law (the U.N. is simply powerless without the combined force of it’s member nations).
As to weapons of mass destruction…absolutely. Countries do what countries do. If enough countries pool their power against that nation they stop or are destroyed it’s power dynamics not law.
There are international law scholars who argue that the blockade itself is illegal. A blockade is illegal if it causes excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained. The blockade has led to economic collapse within Gaza. There are shortages of medicine, power outages, and critics claim it has led to many unnecessary deaths.
I don’t think your comment about how far a ship would get if it approached the U.S. is a good comparison. A ship approaching the U.S. is like a person entering a building that requires you to show I.D. Sure, you’ll be stopped and asked for I.D. A ship approaching a blockage is like a person approaching a police riot barricade, where they’ll be shot with rubber bullets, pepper sprayed, or beaten with clubs for trying to pass through it.
that should say “blockage,” not “blockage.” I must have a little brain blockage myself.
damn it… I give up. Blockade
Actually your statement makes mine even more salient. The point being these people took a risk and knew what they were doing. They received fairly mild treatment (initially) until they chose to attack the IDF soldiers at which point they responded with appropriate force to control the situation.
As to the blockade, it is clear that in dealing with a belligerent territory a sovereign nation can and will do what is necessary to insulate itself from harm. As to what military advantages there are it is quite clear that the blockade along with other measures serves a very clear security purpose.
International law scholars will never agree so calling on international law to answer which party is right or wrong is a fools errand. The Israelis and Palestinians have made hating each other a way of life and as far as I can tell unless there is a compromise it will continue forever. I hope there will someday be a compromise…but either way it will be a compromise not a moral treatise on whether one or the other was right, good, or just, because neither of them are.
At the end of the day though when you run a boat at a country that has already told you to shove off and all they do is shoot pepper balls at you…you are very lucky. When you physically attack the soldiers who were treating you with kid gloves…you reap the whirlwind.
I don’t feel bad for them, and I don’t buy into the notion that Israel is to blame. A group of overly idealistic fools played war and got killed. It happens all the time
They did take a risk, and for that I have little sympathy for the consequences that befell them. And I agree with you other statement that international law is an illusion. However, it’s an illusion in the sense that any statutory law is an illusion – a notion of what ought to be done, and without the power to enforce it, it’s useless. International law is nothing until powerful nations band together to uphold it.
That being said, we generally do expect certain respectable nations in good standing within the international community to abide by international laws and conventions. I think there is a prima facie argument that devastation to the civilian population outweighs whatever military benefit is gained by the continued blockade. Israel effectively controls everything in, out, and even the airspace above, Gaza. The blockade serves a clear security purpose, you say. But, whether it is an unintended consequence or not (and I certainly have to believe that if it was not intended, it was certainly foreseeable), it also serves to decimate the civilian population by cutting off necessary resources. There are many things that could be done, and have been done in the past, that we would consider to cause unnecessary suffering to civilian populations, but could be or are done under the guise of military security purposes.
As I said before, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for them for trying to run the blockade. Even though they may have been well-intentioned, seeking to bring aid to Gaza, and to challenge the (possibly) illegal blockade. Morally or legally right or not, it was stupid. It’s sort of like stepping into the crosswalk on a green light when you know traffic at the red isn’t going to stop – you might have the right-of-way, but you’re going to get creamed. All that being said, I have no sympathy for the troops who descended onto the boat and got their asses handed to them either. First off because if they had done it correctly, they wouldn’t have gotten their asses kicked. Secondly, because it seems to me that the legality (within international law) of the blockade is, at the very least, highly questionable.
I’ll make this short.
Israel is a country with a government run by an organized criminal gang of thugs that would make Al Capone faint.
I’m a Christian, 30 year retired veteran, and politically would make most people reading this blog seem to be flaming liberals in comparison. I have no feelings for or against Jews in America, probably about 1/3 of the Jews in Israel ought to immigrate to America.
That said, the Mediterranean Massacre that occurred a couple of days ago against a NATO treaty signatory country needs to be addressed. Israel has no treaty with America, Turkey does.
Referring to this incident as a massacre is ridiculous these individuals knew what they were getting into they made a choice and that choice had a consequence. The moment they attacked the IDF they rolled the dice and lost.
As to no treaties with Israel… we have very active diplomatic relations with both countries
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/MOUs.html
This action by the Zionists that control the country that calls itself Israel was in fact a massacre, because it was a mass murder. The IDF, the most aggressive hegemon in the middle east, has absolutely no authority under international law to “raid” these ships. The ships were in international waters and headed into Palestinian waters, having no intention to enter the waters of Israel.
Futher, the US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph two, REQUIRES the US government to honor the NATO treaty, of which Turkey is a signatory nation. The NATO Treaty has the force of US law, period.
You can take all the junk “agreements” with Israel and trash can them, they have no Constitutional status whatsoever.
Turkey may, and this is lawful, escort the next relief convoy with Turkish war ships. Israel has bitten off way too much with this poorly thought out action, hopefully Turkey will give them a long overdue arse kicking.
That’s all well and good, and I agree; but the mutual self-defense clause of the NATO treaty was never invoked until the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, and this hardly compares to that. If you’re suggesting that the U.S. should respond to defend Turkey based on this, I’d have to disagree.
The NATO Treaty, US law under Article VI, of the US Constitution has many provisions. One of which is that ANY attack upon a member nation is an attack on all member nations.
It’s required that the US government act as required and requested by Turkey, further and more likely, the other NATO member nations can act in concert or individually to assist Turkey as they may request.
France, Britain, Germany, Norway, and others do not have to ask permission from the US government to act. To call their combined military power formidable is an understatement. They could crush Israel in just a few days. The US government not only will not shield Israel in this situation, it cannot do so, it would be illegal at the very least and essentially impossible under any known scenario.
The Israelis would do well to profusely apologize and make reparations to Gazans and beg for a ceasefire before Turkey acts.
Good luck getting others on board with you. I think you’ll find it difficult, at best, to convince the U.S. government (or any other) that this was an attack on the nation of Turkey, rather than a response to the running of a blockade (legal or not) by civilian ships, and that this requires military response from NATO member nations.
Sorry when anyone bandies about the term zionist I know I can stop listening, nothing of value will follow
Bandies about Zionist? It’s not only what they are, it’s what they call themselves, or at least used to. Learn a little history why don’t you? Zionism even has a Hebrew translation, expected since it was invented by European Jews.
Yes it was a commonly used term as colored or negro was a commonly used term for blacks at one time. The lexicon has evolved to the point that the only people who commonly use the term are Palestinian apologists and anti-semitic groups.
I know very well the history and I find your arguments to come from the above mentioned bias. I have no desire to discuss these issues with a person with that attitude just as I would not have a similar dialogue with a holocaust denier. Facts tend not to matter when discussing issues with someone with that type of bias so the dialogue is pointless
Obviously facts don’t matter to you, hence your not so very clever response, which is little more than Big Lie gibberish, with a rather lame attempt to invoke the race card on top of the implied Anti-Semitic card. Also, I’m not arguing with you, I’m laying out the facts. Israel is just another foreign country in the middle east, it has no special place, that’s just a part of The Israel Lobbyy’s agitprop.
I see no anti-Semitism in that of any kind.
Is there anyone here that will assert that all Scots in America have return rights to Scotland? All Irishmen to Ireland? No, no rational man or woman would assert that.
The Zionist thugs that run the government of Israel are the sons and daughters of illegal European immigrants to Palestine. Stating that they should return to their own countries is NO different than telling an illegal Mexican immigrants, or the sons and daughters of illegal Mexican immigrants, to return to their native country.
This playing of the anti-Semitic card, much like the race card thrown by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson any time they wish to shield themselves from criticism grows old. The constant use of this perjorative was addressed very well in The Politics of Anti-Semitism by Cockburn and St. Clair. Another excellent source of rational thought about the use of Anti-Semitism when there is none is Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finklestein, both of these are largely written by Jews, for everyone.
Last, we have Max Blumenthal’s Excellent Analysis of the Israeli Attack to enlighten us.
And so it does.
Last, we have Our Enemies, the Israelis by Justin Raimondo, describing the 40+ years of Israeli attacks, military and otherwise, in great detail. Good reading for those willing to learn.
Well I suppose you subscribe to the shotgun approach to debating. Unfortunately citing authors does not lend credence to your position.
I did not state that you were an anti-semite (though you reacted so quickly it is clearly a charge you are used to) I simply stated that the term zionist is generally only used by Palestinian apologists (which you clearly are), or anti-semites (which you have not given us enough information to determine).
As to illegal immigration…well I suppose some of them were illegal immigrants to a British protectorate…but your analogy is incorrect as the U.S. was a functioning state at the time of illegal Mexican immigration. A more sensible argument would be the southwestern united states, but by that rationale we should deport all Texans and those U.S. citizens in other southwestern states and cede it back to Mexico so they can create Atzlan. It is a foolish argument.
Israel started a new nation after Britain left, a nation supported by international law (and the Palestinians had that same opportunity but chose not to take it). I think it would be fair to argue that both sides had illegally immigrated in and out of British protected area. Palestinians have immigrated to and from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon etc. illegally.
If you recall also Israel does not have exclusivity in poor relations with Palestinians you can simply look to Jordan’s history with the Palestinians to see what true thuggery looks like.
You’re repeating Israeli and Neocon propaganda, as espoused by Irving Kristal, Norman Podhoretz, and lesser Neocons, you’ve no facts with which to support your position. Virtually all of what you stated is a lie.
We’re done.
Not a lie, an opinion based on facts.
Two men can view the same set of facts and come to two different and equally logical conclusions. My facts are absolutely true, and while there may be opinions and other facts that in your mind trump them, that does not make them less true. Your assertion that I am lying (without speaking to any of the particulars) does not help your position, and simply speaks to your bias.
The fact that you did not speak to my actual argument (especially with regard to the immigration issue) indicates a desire to espouse a particular perspective to other readers rather than deal with the subject at hand.
Here you go:
“The lawlessness and brutality that we saw in the attack on the flotilla is inherent in the nature of Zionism, which, after all, came to birth at a time when the world was rife with nationalism of the most virulent sort. Liberal friends of Israel look on in horror as the Jewish state evolves into a combination of South Africa under apartheid and the new North Korea. Yet ideology has its own inexorable logic: it’s hardly an anomaly that the early followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the leading figure in what is today the ruling party in Israel, were attracted to and full of praise for the “blood and iron” doctrine of Mussolini – and the feeling was mutual. Not for nothing did Il Duce allow Jabotinsky’s “revisionist” faction to set up a training camp in Italy for its naval fighters in the Irgun, the forerunner of today’s IDF.
We’re shocked when survivors of the flotilla attack testify to what happened, and the autopsy reports are coming in: one shot four times in the head, others shot and killed at very close range, execution-style. Yet Israel has shown what it is capable of many times: the hijacking of the Gaza flotilla was just the most recent occurrence in a string of incidents stretching back years: the kidnapping of Mordecai Vanunu, the assassination squads that roam the world in search of Israel’s enemies, the bombing of Western diplomatic and cultural facilities in Egypt to make it look as though the Arabs were responsible (the Lavon incident), not to mention the long history of Israeli aggression against its neighbors and its indigenous Arab population. ”
Resource: Our Enemies, the Israelis
Instead of using the word “Zionist,” why don’t you just say what you mean and use the term “Dirty Jew” instead?
Pat again you quoted some other “authority” and ignored my points. That appeal to authority may have worked in high school, but we’re grown ups now so deal with the facts at hand in your own words or admit your grandstanding for the published Palestinian apologists that you obviously love so well
You had no points, Raph84, so naturally your words merited no reply.
You disappoint with regard to my listing supporting documentation, too bad.
Remember, Anti-Zionist is NOT Anti-Semitic.
Quote: The martial spirit that infuses Israel’s myrmidons with such passion is born of a sense of embattled isolation pulsing at the heart of the Zionist project. Surrounded by enemies, perpetually in “existential” danger, the Jewish state exists simultaneously as a consummate bully and a helpless victim: thus the odd argument coming out of Tel Aviv that their commandos were brutalized by those nasty, stick-wielding Turkish “terrorists,” who had the temerity to fight back. The Israelis released a video, which dominated the Western media coverage, of those awful Turkish “terrorists” beating commandos, omitting what happened in the moments before – live fire coming from helicopters – and after (nine execution-style deaths, and many injuries.)
To the hard line Israeli nationalist – a disagreeable species firmly in control of the government in Tel Aviv, now and for the foreseeable future – everyone is an enemy, but especially the Americans, who, to be sure, hold the fate of the Jewish state in their unreliable hands. What if, some day, we elect a President with some balls, one unafraid of the Lobby and willing to stand up for America? What if we elect a Congress that isn’t nearly as eager as this one is to kowtow to AIPAC and apologize for Israeli state terrorism? What if, one day, the aid spigot is turned off?
Israel’s national paranoia is not limited to the Israelis, per se, but also afflicts their American amen corner to such an extent that every criticism of Israel is portrayed as an anti-Semitic plot. For example, the above-cited Fox News story is never disputed, or even quoted: it is simply dismissed as vile “anti-Semitism.” Is Carl Cameron – a Fox News reporter once considered friendly to the Bush White House – an anti-Semite? Is Fox News “anti-Israel”? And what about the rest of Cameron’s fascinating and detailed four-part report, which not only avers the Israelis were watching and aware of the 9/11 hijackers, but also exposes an extensive spy operation and systematic industrial espionage in the US?
Disguised as ill feelings toward Barack Obama, the rabid anti-Americanism on the rise in Israel may seem bizarre, on the surface: why hate your best friend? Yet this development is perfectly understandable. How would you like it if your “best friend” supported you, protected you, succored you, and gave you everything you needed and wanted, so that eventually you were lost in his all-encompassing embrace? At some point, if you had any kind of character, you’d come to resent it – and even hate it, whilst hating yourself for allowing it.
The “special relationship” is a poisonous and deeply dysfunctional relationship, which benefits one party at the growing expense of the other. Sooner or later it will end, but how? With an open break, perhaps even a violent conflict – remember how Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen refused to rule out shooting down an Israeli jet crossing Iraqi airspace en route to Iran? Or, more probably, with a covert Israeli action of some sinister sort? In any event, you can be sure that Washington greatly fears the answer to that question. Resource: Our Enemies, the Israelis
Pat,
the more you qoute (I would say write, but really you are just copying and pasting at this point) the more it becomes clear that your version of “anti-zionism” Palestinian apologetics really is dangerously close to anti-semitisim.
Anyone so angry about the “jewish state” who intimates that a group or even a governing body of a people has a unified mindset with a unified set of reasons is making a blatant stereotype.
Attempting to connect the Israelis to discredited ideologies (musollini/facisim) is also a poor strategy…as we all know politics make strange bedfellows and every nation has skeletons in the closet as to who they allied, made deals, or otherwise interacted with. I’m sure the Palestinians have more than a few shady bedfellows themselves.
Your notion that you do not have to respond to arguments because they are beneath you is just another juvenile debating tactic. If you want to maintain the notion that you are an intelligent individual involved in a mature political discussion you are going to have to argue like an adult not a capricious child.
I hope Israel does what they believe is right for the defense of their nation.
It’s disgusting their neighbors teach small children to be (explosive) martyrs and that Zionist blood will flow in the streets.
It’s hard to believe someone (Palestinians) comes in peace when the whole ship has at least 30-40 kitchen knives, and the passengers are trying to take pistols from soldiers.
+1 to Israel for trying to use less than lethal weapons.
-10 for Palestinians for being extremists, using knives on people at close range.