Flotilla attack: Autopsies reveal intensity of Israeli military

Goonerboy


Joined: 01/04/2009
Posts: 723

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 09:15

Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.



The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

cyprusairsoft



Joined: 22/06/2009
Posts: 2066

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 10:41

modern fire arms fired from close range or long range on fully automatic will contribute to

the amount of gunshot wounds. im not defending anyone but if you watch the video

i think you would pull the trigger when masses of people are attacking you from all sides with iron bars and knives. By the way im neutral on the whole affair.

Israel has suffered so much and so have the palestinians,

Israel has the right to defend itself and ships carrying aid should get to intended destination.

I think its time international aid in agreement with israel is allowed not the fly by nightly activist

lot. No offense intended.

common goals need to be achieved with both sides hamas is hardly squeaky clean

and israel have a lot to answer for

marcosthechef



Joined: 30/11/2009
Posts: 646

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 11:35

I have a mixed opinion but this is all highly questionable, see the John Snow interview on my blog



http://marcosthechef.com/

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 15:53

Sounds more like some of them were executed.



Some of the bullets were fired from under 18" away.



Were any warning shots fired?



Why didn't the soldiers shoot low instead of death shots to the head?



Bullet wounds to the back suggest people trying to get away from the killing.



A truly horrific event.

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 18:24

Some of the bullets were fired from under 18" away



Which indicates that the activist was very close to the soldier when shot - probably because he was trying to beat his brains out with an iron bar. I would be more concerned if the person shot was a good distance away from the shooter as this would indicate that he was less of a threat.



Why didn't the soldiers shoot low instead of death shots to the head?



I would suggest that you watch too many tv programmes !! The military are taught to shoot at the main mass of the body or head in order to give best chance of a hit and to quickly debilitate the attacker, normally firing two shots (double tap) in quick succesion. Firing shots to wound is a complete fallacy.



One has to remember that this was an extremely violent confrontation, with people literally fighting for their lives. I can't say that I am all that suprised by the number of gun shot wounds encountered.



Paul

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 18:33

I was a class one marksman in the Army Cadets and Junior leaders and progressed to handling the full range of weapons when in 72 Engineer.



Until Dunblane initiated the banning of all weapons except shotguns and .22 live round rifles and therefore causing the closure of my gun club i owned two rifles and three hand guns.



You can fire low.

Scoty


Joined: 23/05/2010
Posts: 846

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 18:51

No expert - but firing low at 18" away - pretty damn close to yourself. Fire horizontally would be obvious to me but as I said, no expert. When self preservation - if it was indeed that ???? - comes in - rules go out the window

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 19:08

Red Snapper



I fully respect your time in the Cadets, Junior Leaders and 72 Engineer. However, in a 28 year career as a Royal Marine I was never taught to fire low/shoot to wound, we were always taught to shoot at the main body mass/head. Funnily enough the exercises that we did to strengthen the muscles used to fire accurately were called "Shoot to Kill" exercises - the clue is in the title!!



Scoty has it spot on - if you are wrestling with an attacker who is intent on bashing your head in, you take whatever shots you can, and the last thing that you would do is to fire low at 18" and risk shooting yourself.



With the utmost respect, I would guess by your military career that you would have done very little, if any Close Quarter Battle/House clearing/ship clearing drills. It is a totally different ballgame to jumping on the ranges and taking out targets from 300 metres.



Regards



Paul

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
05/06/2010 19:18

I wander if you'd still be talking/writing the s**t that you are had there been your relations or even yourself on that ship!!!!!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 01:47

I wonder if there would be quite so much apparent sympathy

if a hamas-dominated gaza was firing rockets and suicide bombing

your relations or even yourself on that score



the fact that israel itself is more or less peaceful is due no doubt

to the utmost vigilance with which it defends itsef and its people:



exactly like most states in the world do, or have done in the past

Grinderman


Joined: 11/08/2009
Posts: 33

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 08:20

The ship was just a proxy for Hamas. They got what coming to them. Serve 'em right.

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 09:04

Yorgozlu



Bad things happen to people every minute of the day around the world, so you could pose your question to anyone.



I was merely trying to explain that just because people were shot at close range, does not mean that it had to be a summary execution. I was also attempting to dispel the myth of firing 'wounding shots' - it just isn't the way that the military are trained.



As for how I would feel if my relations or myself were on board ? Simple, neither myself or my relations are Hamas sympathisers so would never get involved - therefore the question is irrelevant.



I am genuinely sorry that people have died but they were given alternate choices and chose not to take them. Had they done so they would be alive today just like their fellow activists on the other ships who just showed passive resistance.



Regards



Paul

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 11:07

Yorgozlu, your insulting and emotive language removes credibility from your argument and does you no credit either.



Fiendishpaul's tone, expression and explanation are what good argument should be about...putting an alternative point of view across with calm, objectivity and respect. I thought he answered Red Snapper's points clearly and logically.



You didn't seem to have a point worth answering.

cyprusairsoft



Joined: 22/06/2009
Posts: 2066

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 18:06

here here also the point is you could say what if your family were the soldiers from israel!

to fire at paper targets and humans is totally different if you watch the video is is uncontrolled mayhem no wonder more were not killed.

RedSnapper


Joined: 12/08/2008
Posts: 540

Message Posted:
06/06/2010 22:18

Fair comment msg 8 plus some reports have stated that a lot of the firing came from the helicopter.

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 08:37

The Israelis are such honest people a dozen forged British passports used in an assassination of a Hamas leader

read the attached report of a British captain on the flotila

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/cyprus-based-british-captain-recounts-mid-sea-horror/20100606

The attack on Gaza 1300/1400 civilians killed 12 Israelis

Disproportionate force

Gaza is being starved to death

Hippo


Joined: 02/02/2007
Posts: 2070

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:07

There are always arguments for both sides, however the sheer brutality of so called security forces is paramount to murder.



The attack was in international waters and is clearly piracy, the crew and passengers have a right to defend thier property.



The culprits and the politicians that gave the orders should be tried for piracy and murder.



If It had been an incident by Hamas then the justice doled out by Israel would have been sharp and clear.



Relations in the Levant have never been at a lower ebb, let us hope reason prevails and the situation is not further osculated.

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:12

What do these peace activists want, WAR?

Goonerboy


Joined: 01/04/2009
Posts: 723

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:19

@ Troodo



Justice, Aid and important medical supplies to the people of Palestine

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:20

Extract from the report



“I had to slow down because I was fearful of being rammed, then the commandos boarded – there were no shots fired - but they used a taser on one female Australian journalist then they shot a paintball in the face of a Belgian woman, which made her nose bleed,” he said “They were very rough with the female passengers.”



Non lethal force used and everyone walked off the boat alive. I would suggest that you see more brutality on a night out in any British city than was exhibited on this boat.



I agree that the civilian casulaties during the battle in Gaza were horrendous and whilst I in no way condone the action, please tell me how you fight a war with an enemy who use the tactics of firing on Israeli forces from schools, hospitals, housing estates and then blend back into the civilian population.



Turkey are fighting a similar war with the PKK. Casualty figures - over 40000 Kurds killed. Do you condemn Turkey in the same way ??



Paul

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:47

Hippo



"The attack was in international waters and is clearly piracy, the crew and passengers have a right to defend thier property"



The attached article sheds a different light on this assumption:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284210429984110.html



Rightly or wrongly, if the boats hadn't been boarded when they were, then they would have been boarded within Israeli 'territorial waters' with I fear, exactly the same results.



"Relations in the Levant have never been at a lower ebb, let us hope reason prevails and the situation is not further escalated".



I couldn't agree more.



Regards



Paul

CJtill


Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 836

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 09:57

All this arguing is a bit pointless as the pro israel group are not going to sympathise with the woolly do gooders who only want to see the destruction of the state of Israel, likewise the Palestinian contingent want returned what was stolen from them back in the late 1940s.

If the world leaders cant sort the problem, who can?

No win situation.

Michael

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 10:17

Michael



Agreed



However, it makes a change from debating the merits of Rafa Benitez as a football manager or where you can get the cheapest pint of Efes !!



If nothing else, it hopefully encourages people to engage in healthy debate and maybe learn a thing or two about what is going on outside this little island. After all, this is all going on only about 100 miles away !!



Just my opinion of course



Regards



Paul

Troodo


Joined: 12/06/2008
Posts: 1002

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 11:59

Goonerboy.



Justice, direct flights and trade to the people of the TRNC.

Hippo


Joined: 02/02/2007
Posts: 2070

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:06

I have the coordinates of the interception of the peace convoy and it was 47NM from Gaza, International waters.

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:20

Hippo



As I said in my previous post, I don't question the co-ordinates given but was merely offering (via the attached link) an alternate interpretation of what constitutes 'international waters' when a blockade is in place. The author of the article is a Professor of Law at Chicago University and is a law graduate of Yale and Harvard. His knowledge of international law is far in excess of mine and probably the vast majority of forum users. I thought it might be of interest to see the legal interpretation - I was certainly not aware of the issues that he brings up. There seems to be a problem with the link so i will copy a couple of extracts just to give a flavour of the content:



Continued....

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:20

The most serious charge is that by seizing control of the flotilla, Israel violated the freedom of ships to travel on the high seas. The basic law here is that states have jurisdiction over a 12-mile territorial sea and can take enforcement actions in an additional 12-mile contiguous zone, according to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (which Israel has not ratified, but which is generally regarded as reflecting customary international law). Outside that area, foreign ships can sail unmolested.



But there are exceptions. Longstanding customary international law permits states to enforce publicly announced blockades on the high seas. The Gaza blockade was known to all, and certainly to those who launched the ships for the very purpose of breaking it. The real question is whether the Israeli blockade is lawful. Blockades certainly are during times of war or armed conflict. The U.S.-led coalition imposed a blockade on Iraq during the first Gulf War.

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:21

"The catch here is the meaning of "armed conflict." Traditionally, armed conflict can take place only between sovereign states. If Gaza were clearly a sovereign state, then Israel would be at war with Gaza and the blockade would be lawful. If, however, Gaza were just a part of Israel, Israel would have the right to control its borders— but not by intercepting foreign ships outside its 12-mile territorial sea or contiguous zone.



Gaza is not a sovereign state (although it has its own government, controlled by Hamas) and is not a part of Israel or of any other state. Its status is ambiguous, and so too is the nature of the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas. Thus there is no clear answer to the question whether the blockade is lawful."

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:25

"However, the traditional idea of armed conflict involving only sovereign states has long given way to a looser definition that includes some conflicts between states and nonstate actors. The international rules governing blockades attempt to balance belligerents' interest in security and other countries' economic interests in shipping. During war, security interests prevail.



War-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas. And because Israel intercepts only self-identified blockade runners, its actions have little impact on neutral shipping. This balance is reflected in the traditional privilege of states to capture foreign pirates on the high seas.



So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent."

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:26

"Human Rights Watch argues that a blockade to strike at a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against a civilian population, in violation of Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention. This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanction are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own.



Most attention has focused on the question whether Israeli commandos used excessive force while taking control of one of the flotilla ships, which resulted in nine deaths. Human Rights Watch says that Israel's actions violated the 1990 United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. However, that document is not international law; its principles are akin to a set of "best practices" for advising countries with poorly trained police forces. It is also vague and it would not apply to a military operation."



Regards



Paul

Grinderman


Joined: 11/08/2009
Posts: 33

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 13:42

Thank you Paul, very helpful.

Hippo


Joined: 02/02/2007
Posts: 2070

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 15:33

But again that is only an interpretation, and further more an American, I treat any explanation from the American/Jewish controlled media with some scepticism.



It is no wonder that many consider the two blue lines on the Israeli flag, the Euphrates and the Mississippi.



What Israel has done to the Palestinians is Ghettoise them, short memories they have of the 1940's



Corner an animal and it will fight back.



Why will Israel not agree to an international inquiry?

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 16:03

Hippo



Alas, it was the only article that I could find that dealt with the relevant issues. I did try to find out a bit more about the author (did he have links with Israel etc etc) but his biography was pretty scant and did not speak of his ethnic background. Just because he is an American doesn't necessarily mean that he is lying !!



If you have doubts about the accuracy of his interpretation, you could of course research alternate interpretations and post the details for us all to see.



The situation in the West Bank/Gaza is horrendous and to an outsider is very difficult to defend from a moral perspective. However, Israel have tried to negotiate with Hamas on numerous occasions only to be met by a continued wish to wipe Israel from the map and suicide bombers/rocket attacks. And the innocent continue to suffer !!



I concur that Israel not agreeing to an international inquiry is a mistake as it gives the impression that they have something to hide.



Paul

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
13/06/2010 21:02

msg 13;

"Yorgozlu, your insulting and emotive language removes credibility from your argument and does you no credit either. "



1-I did not ask for a credit from anyone.

2-My comments are BLACK and WHITE,not insulting.

3-I was not arguing.