Basically, the IDF fucked this up so hard that speculating or reflecting on the actions of the flotilla is academic. The IDF basically removed the option for them to have a peaceful, coherent response by flooding the ship with stun grenades and commandos in the middle of the night. That's why this incessant victim blame is so galling. They weren't given the chance to act rationally. And that's on the IDF.
When their actions are currently being used all over as propaganda for the opposite of their cause, I think it is worth looking at them critically. It is important that future flotillas do not behave the way these people did.
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
How did they instigate the first bout of lethal violence?
There is no evidence that the IDF shot live ammo before the people on deck started lethally beating them with metal pipes.
There is absolutely nothing to make a Muslim assume that IDF commandos sent to storm and take your boat illegally aren't going to kick their teeth in in the process.
Whether or not it's illegal does not apply to the argument you are making here. You are arguing that they responded with violence because they were so scared the IDF was going to massacre them—so if this is the case, they would have had the same reaction inside Israel's territorial waters.
Now, I disagree that this was the case. I actually think it's likely that the illegality of the boarding action was a motive for the violent resistance. But then, that's a very different motive than "omg the IDF is going to kill us all I might as well go down fighting."
And in either of these situations the actions of the protesters is completely warranted.
Sheep on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
Because that one navy commander decides the entire Israel military policy.
Prove this. Wait, you can't, there is no timetable for the events that occured, mostly because the IDF confiscated all the footage of the incident, and disrupted the flotilla's ability to send their media back to their agencies.
Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Multiple eyewitness accounts do not mention initial live fire.
Some did say it was live fire. Go watch the very first video in the thread, the media reporter, talking in english, asserts that the IDF has opened fire and they have critically wounder personelle then later in the same video says the IDF has begun boarding them.
I can't watch it until tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure I saw it and I'm pretty sure that's not what it said.
You should quit ignoring all the non-IDF reports of the incident, then.
I'm not ignoring them; I mentioned them in the post to which you are responding and in this one.
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
Yeah, because maintaining a blockade and boarding ships in international water isn't war-like at all.
Well, I mean, it is when it's done to Israel. But not when Israel is the one doing it.
Thanatos on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Basically, the IDF fucked this up so hard that speculating or reflecting on the actions of the flotilla is academic. The IDF basically removed the option for them to have a peaceful, coherent response by flooding the ship with stun grenades and commandos in the middle of the night. That's why this incessant victim blame is so galling. They weren't given the chance to act rationally. And that's on the IDF.
When their actions are currently being used all over as propaganda for the opposite of their cause, I think it is worth looking at them critically. It is important that future flotillas do not behave the way these people did.
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
Again, they did do great work. They increased pressure from the international community to end the blockade. Israel lost it's most important ally in the region (turkey). There are now more aid boats on the way (bring more aid = good thing). Egpyt lowered their land blockade as a direct result of this incident.
Israel agrees with U.S. officials who say the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable," but it will not bend to international demands that it lift its blockade of the Palestinian enclave, the country's top diplomat here said today.
"It's true they want to take a look at it, and we want to take a look at it. We agree with them," Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told AOL News in reference to a published report that the Obama administration wants to end the stalemate over Gaza after Monday's deadly confrontation at sea. "But we have yet to find a viable alternative to our current policy" of boarding humanitarian aid ships to search for weapons and other contraband that could be used by Hamas to attack Israel.
"If the sea lanes are open to the Gaza Strip, that's the end of us," Oren said. "It means that rockets that can reach Jerusalem, that can reach Haifa, can be brought in in massive quantities. ... Iran will get a foothold on the Mediterranean. We can't do that. The sea cannot be opened. ... So that begs the question: How do you stop the arms shipments? And nobody has a better way of doing it than boarding and inspecting ships at sea."
Since Jewish settlers left Gaza in 2005 -- an operation Oren took part in as an Army reservist -- Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel, he said.
"Everything is a choice. Are you going to make your decisions on how you look in Belgium, or are your children going to be able to go safely to school the next day? If you open up the Gaza coast to every ship that came in, we could look good in Belgium, but downtown Tel Aviv would come under rocket fire. It's that simple."
Bullshit hyperbole for the lose.
Listen, we can't have the Palestinians getting guitars, chickens, or seeds. They could weaponize any of those objects with deadly results.
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
Hopefully, but everyone can learn something from this.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
How about "Don't violently attack Israeli forces and only use passive resistance, so as to prevent more deaths and to avoid providing our enemy with more propaganda?"
Israeli politicians are already trying to save face and blame others while trying not to look weak. Whatever siege mentality they might have, they aren't so insane as to alienate its allies.
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
Yeah, because maintaining a blockade and boarding ships in international water isn't war-like at all.
Well, I mean, it is when it's done to Israel. But not when Israel is the one doing it.
That's besides the point. The point is these violent savages have now justified treating actual activists as hostile forces. Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response. Nobody is saying Israel shouldn't have waited or that the blockade isn't dumb.
There are now more aid boats on the way (bring more aid = good thing).
Which are now, rightfully, going to be treated as violent psychopaths and dealt with accordingly. I'd bet they will till they hit territorial waters and then mess them up proper at the first sign of resistance. There will be no paint ball guns, there will be mp5s.
Listen, we can't have the Palestinians getting guitars, chickens, or seeds. They could weaponize any of those objects with deadly results.
They have to make sure their children can go to school while safe. Palestinians obviously don't deserve schools. Or houses to leave to go to school from.
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
Hopefully, but everyone can learn something from this.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
How about "Don't violently attack Israeli forces and only use passive resistance, so as to prevent more deaths and to avoid providing our enemy with more propaganda?"
You are not getting it. Ideally these people would have reacted in a rational, peaceful manner--even if they were totally justified in defending themselves. However, the IDF removed their capacity to react in that manner. The IDF created a riot, and you are criticizing the dead for reacting to conditions the IDF created.
Spaten Optimator on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
Hopefully, but everyone can learn something from this.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
How about "Don't violently attack Israeli forces and only use passive resistance, so as to prevent more deaths and to avoid providing our enemy with more propaganda?"
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
Yeah, because maintaining a blockade and boarding ships in international water isn't war-like at all.
Well, I mean, it is when it's done to Israel. But not when Israel is the one doing it.
That's besides the point. The point is these violent savages have now justified treating actual activists as hostile forces. Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response. Nobody is saying Israel shouldn't have waited or that the blockade isn't dumb.
There are now more aid boats on the way (bring more aid = good thing).
Which are now, rightfully, going to be treated as violent psychopaths and dealt with accordingly. I'd bet they will till they hit territorial waters and then mess them up proper at the first sign of resistance. There will be no paint ball guns, there will be mp5s.
That's what these jokers caused.
Because obviously when you defend your ship from unauthorized force you are a violent psychopath.
Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response.
What fucking evidence do you have for that. Everything points to the opposite.
Prior to these yuckapucks martyr fiasco there was no reason to expect "activists" to be violent even if they were trying to break the blockade. Now there is very good reason to expect that any boat, that offers any resistance, might be full of metal pole and knife wielding suicidal lunatics. So when you go on board, you're going to prepare, and react accordingly. I'd hate to be on the next boat that gets boarded, because it's not going to be nice.
There are consequences for these actions, and that's going to be one of them.
You are not getting it. Ideally these people would have reacted in a rational, peaceful manner--even if they were totally justified in defending themselves. However, the IDF removed their capacity to react in that manner. The IDF created a riot, and you are criticizing the dead for reacting to conditions the IDF created.
I am indeed. They should have tried harder to keep cool heads. Other activists on the flotilla managed to do that. These people failed.
The people on those videos repeatedly beating a prone soldier with metal poles don't get a free pass just because they were panicked or even if they thought they were going to die. As far as I'm concerned, there's no justification for that; it's savagery, it's pointless and suicidal, and it can only be excused if they were literally not in control of their bodies through some instinct reaction.
Qingu on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
Like I said, there is no arguing with crazy and the political beast of Israel is most certainly crazy.
Prove this. Wait, you can't, there is no timetable for the events that occured, mostly because the IDF confiscated all the footage of the incident, and disrupted the flotilla's ability to send their media back to their agencies.
Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Multiple eyewitness accounts do not mention initial live fire.
And multiply others claim it was live fire. So, stalemate?
Some did say it was live fire. Go watch the very first video in the thread, the media reporter, talking in english, asserts that the IDF has opened fire and they have critically wounder personelle then later in the same video says the IDF has begun boarding them.
I can't watch it until tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure I saw it and I'm pretty sure that's not what it said.
You are correct, what he actually says is "we are being attacked from all sides from ships and helicopters" but doesn't say "live fire" until after he said they were boarded. The fact is, the timetable of events still isn't clear, and varies by reports.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
How about "Don't violently attack Israeli forces and only use passive resistance, so as to prevent more deaths and to avoid providing our enemy with more propaganda?"
You know, Palestinians use passive, peaceful resistance constantly. No one ever reports on it, because the Israelis never let any media interact with Palestine.
When was the last time you saw news about a peaceful protest in Palestine? You don't, because the only thing the Israelis ever allow to get coverage is the violence.
Interesting article, but the part at the end is telling
One Israeli navy commander told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would use even more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade.
“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” the officer said. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”
Great work there "peace" activists.
If the israeli military wasn't bugfuck loco in the first place, they wouldn't have massacred civilians to begin with. They really are completely, irredeemably, despicable.
PolloDiablo on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response.
What fucking evidence do you have for that. Everything points to the opposite.
Prior to these yuckapucks martyr fiasco there was no reason to expect "activists" to be violent even if they were trying to break the blockade. Now there is very good reason to expect that any boat, that offers any resistance, might be full of metal pole and knife wielding suicidal lunatics. So when you go on board, you're going to prepare, and react accordingly. I'd hate to be on the next boat that gets boarded, because it's not going to be nice.
There are consequences for these actions, and that's going to be one of them.
They were violent because they were defending themselves from being board by unauthorized force that was hostile towards them. What are you missing here?
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Not if resisting will have no effect except to increase your chances of being killed, and the others around you.
Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response.
What fucking evidence do you have for that. Everything points to the opposite.
Prior to these yuckapucks martyr fiasco there was no reason to expect "activists" to be violent even if they were trying to break the blockade. Now there is very good reason to expect that any boat, that offers any resistance, might be full of metal pole and knife wielding suicidal lunatics. So when you go on board, you're going to prepare, and react accordingly. I'd hate to be on the next boat that gets boarded, because it's not going to be nice.
There are consequences for these actions, and that's going to be one of them.
They were violent because they were defending themselves from being board by unauthorized force that was hostile towards them. What are you missing here?
All evidence points that this would have happened no matter where they were stopped. And it doesn't change what happened or the reaction.
Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response.
What fucking evidence do you have for that. Everything points to the opposite.
Prior to these yuckapucks martyr fiasco there was no reason to expect "activists" to be violent even if they were trying to break the blockade. Now there is very good reason to expect that any boat, that offers any resistance, might be full of metal pole and knife wielding suicidal lunatics. So when you go on board, you're going to prepare, and react accordingly. I'd hate to be on the next boat that gets boarded, because it's not going to be nice.
There are consequences for these actions, and that's going to be one of them.
They were violent because they were defending themselves from being board by unauthorized force that was hostile towards them. What are you missing here?
Did you see that one video? One of these terrorists was hefting a chair! Clearly Israel needs to crack down, because otherwise someone could get hurt. Thank god their commandos are willing to mow down civilians to defend themselves, otherwise one of the glorious master race might have been killed.
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Not if resisting will have no effect except to increase your chances of being killed, and the others around you.
Except that isn't true in the least.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Not if resisting will have no effect except to increase your chances of being killed, and the others around you.
So, argument from expecting these people to be precogniscent?
And multiply others claim it was live fire. So, stalemate?
They do not say the intiial fire was live.
IF you have sources I haven't seen, cite them.
You are correct, what he actually says is "we are being attacked from all sides from ships and helicopters" but doesn't say "live fire" until after he said they were boarded. The fact is, the timetable of events still isn't clear, and varies by reports.
But there are no eyewitness reports of live fire before the confrontation.
So, I don't really get why you're asking me to "prove there wasn't live fire" when the burden of proof is obviously on you.
And multiply others claim it was live fire. So, stalemate?
They do not say the intiial fire was live.
IF you have sources I haven't seen, cite them.
You are correct, what he actually says is "we are being attacked from all sides from ships and helicopters" but doesn't say "live fire" until after he said they were boarded. The fact is, the timetable of events still isn't clear, and varies by reports.
But there are no eyewitness reports of live fire before the confrontation.
So, I don't really get why you're asking me to "prove there wasn't live fire" when the burden of proof is obviously on you.
I don't want to re-read the last 20 pages to find the numerous "first eyewitness reports" that started coming out, but I will try to find some in a bit. They were linked in this thread, however, so you should/could have already seen the sources.
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Not if resisting will have no effect except to increase your chances of being killed, and the others around you.
Except that isn't true in the least.
This is just nonsense, Ham. I don't really understand how you can say something like this.
So, argument from expecting these people to be precogniscent?
Precognizant?
They were surrounded by warships. The commandos were armed and descending from helicopters.
In what universe would anyone rational think "Maybe if I try to fight these people off, I won't get killed"
What does it matter if it was live or not? There are videos of people dead and wounded before the commandos boarded. Maybe it wasn't from bullets, but that hardly matters. And getting shot at, even with less lethal rounds, will tend to reasonably rile up a crowd.
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
Not if resisting will have no effect except to increase your chances of being killed, and the others around you.
Except that isn't true in the least.
This is just nonsense, Ham. I don't really understand how you can say something like this.
So, argument from expecting these people to be precogniscent?
Precognizant?
They were surrounded by warships. The commandos were armed and descending from helicopters.
In what universe would anyone rational think "Maybe if I try to fight these people off, I won't get killed"
Maybe they weren't being rational. Maybe they were scared at being woken up by gunfire and warships. A crowd of panicky people in an enclosed space being fired on is not the right venue to demand perfect rationality.
All evidence points that this would have happened no matter where they were stopped. And it doesn't change what happened or the reaction.
It might have, if the people on deck were motivated by "they're boarding our boat in illegal waters, we can't let that shit stand," as opposed to "They're shooting, I'm so scared I'm going to go into a violent frenzy."
What does it matter if it was live or not? There are videos of people dead and wounded before the commandos boarded.
This is false.
Maybe it wasn't from bullets, but that hardly matters. And getting shot at, even with less lethal rounds, will tend to reasonably rile up a crowd.
Rarely to the extent shown on the videos.
Look. It is correct to point out that Israel bears responsibilty for creating this chaotic violent situation, and ultimately for any deaths that come out of it. What I am trying to get at is that the people caught in this situation had more degrees of freedom than many of you are saying. I don't think they had to grab pipes and beat the shit out of the commandos. And if this was not an instinctual reaction but rather a conscious choice, it was a very poor one.
There are tons of interesting questions here. Is the occupation legal/ethical? By extension, is the blockade a reasonable defense of interests? Who shot first? In the face of vastly superior force is it smart/moral to defend oneself? All of these would make for good threads in themselves. As per this specific incident, this is how I feel:
If a bunch of hippies come into your maritime territory after you warned them not to several times, blow them out of the water for all I care. That's your prerogative.
If you jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the night with guns onto a civilian ship in international waters, you are a fucking pirate.
I don't really care how people feel about pirates. Maybe you really dig Jack Sparrow, or are pissed you can't take your yacht past Somalia. But, to me, there's no real question that this was an act of piracy.
There are tons of interesting questions here. Is the occupation legal/ethical? By extension, is the blockade a reasonable defense of interests? Who shot first? In the face of vastly superior force is it smart/moral to defend oneself? All of these would make for good threads in themselves. As per this specific incident, this is how I feel:
If a bunch of hippies come into your maritime territory after you warned them not to several times, blow them out of the water for all I care. That's your prerogative.
If you jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the night with guns onto a civilian ship in international waters, you are a fucking pirate.
I don't really care how people feel about pirates. Maybe you really dig Jack Sparrow, or are pissed you can't take your yacht past Somalia. But, to me, there's no real question that this was an act of piracy.
Posts
I think most of the lessons to be learned are on the IDF side of the ledger.
What's the takeaway for future flotillas? Don't panic when the IDF incites panic? Wear bullet resistant materials?
And in either of these situations the actions of the protesters is completely warranted.
There's no arguing with crazy, is there?
Because that one navy commander decides the entire Israel military policy.
I can't watch it until tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure I saw it and I'm pretty sure that's not what it said.
I'm not ignoring them; I mentioned them in the post to which you are responding and in this one.
Well, I mean, it is when it's done to Israel. But not when Israel is the one doing it.
Carry ship to air missiles?
Again, they did do great work. They increased pressure from the international community to end the blockade. Israel lost it's most important ally in the region (turkey). There are now more aid boats on the way (bring more aid = good thing). Egpyt lowered their land blockade as a direct result of this incident.
All good things these "peace" activists did.
How about "Don't violently attack Israeli forces and only use passive resistance, so as to prevent more deaths and to avoid providing our enemy with more propaganda?"
That's besides the point. The point is these violent savages have now justified treating actual activists as hostile forces. Expect beat downs and bloodying of the true peace activists, and now it's a justified response. Nobody is saying Israel shouldn't have waited or that the blockade isn't dumb.
Which are now, rightfully, going to be treated as violent psychopaths and dealt with accordingly. I'd bet they will till they hit territorial waters and then mess them up proper at the first sign of resistance. There will be no paint ball guns, there will be mp5s.
That's what these jokers caused.
They have to make sure their children can go to school while safe. Palestinians obviously don't deserve schools. Or houses to leave to go to school from.
You are not getting it. Ideally these people would have reacted in a rational, peaceful manner--even if they were totally justified in defending themselves. However, the IDF removed their capacity to react in that manner. The IDF created a riot, and you are criticizing the dead for reacting to conditions the IDF created.
Why? Their ship was being boarded without consent in international waters by an obviously hostile force. Should potential victims of aggressive force just take it?
That's just awesome. It's like Israel just hates good pr
EDITS: Forgive me if this has already been posted, but i can't catch up in this thread.
The point of the news is that he got four in the head one in the chest. It just looks so damn bad
I hope you're not serious, it's not good that anybody is dead.
Because obviously when you defend your ship from unauthorized force you are a violent psychopath.
Prior to these yuckapucks martyr fiasco there was no reason to expect "activists" to be violent even if they were trying to break the blockade. Now there is very good reason to expect that any boat, that offers any resistance, might be full of metal pole and knife wielding suicidal lunatics. So when you go on board, you're going to prepare, and react accordingly. I'd hate to be on the next boat that gets boarded, because it's not going to be nice.
There are consequences for these actions, and that's going to be one of them.
The people on those videos repeatedly beating a prone soldier with metal poles don't get a free pass just because they were panicked or even if they thought they were going to die. As far as I'm concerned, there's no justification for that; it's savagery, it's pointless and suicidal, and it can only be excused if they were literally not in control of their bodies through some instinct reaction.
And multiply others claim it was live fire. So, stalemate?
You are correct, what he actually says is "we are being attacked from all sides from ships and helicopters" but doesn't say "live fire" until after he said they were boarded. The fact is, the timetable of events still isn't clear, and varies by reports.
When was the last time you saw news about a peaceful protest in Palestine? You don't, because the only thing the Israelis ever allow to get coverage is the violence.
If the israeli military wasn't bugfuck loco in the first place, they wouldn't have massacred civilians to begin with. They really are completely, irredeemably, despicable.
They were violent because they were defending themselves from being board by unauthorized force that was hostile towards them. What are you missing here?
All evidence points that this would have happened no matter where they were stopped. And it doesn't change what happened or the reaction.
Did you see that one video? One of these terrorists was hefting a chair! Clearly Israel needs to crack down, because otherwise someone could get hurt. Thank god their commandos are willing to mow down civilians to defend themselves, otherwise one of the glorious master race might have been killed.
Except that isn't true in the least.
So, argument from expecting these people to be precogniscent?
IF you have sources I haven't seen, cite them.
But there are no eyewitness reports of live fire before the confrontation.
So, I don't really get why you're asking me to "prove there wasn't live fire" when the burden of proof is obviously on you.
I don't want to re-read the last 20 pages to find the numerous "first eyewitness reports" that started coming out, but I will try to find some in a bit. They were linked in this thread, however, so you should/could have already seen the sources.
Precognizant?
They were surrounded by warships. The commandos were armed and descending from helicopters.
In what universe would anyone rational think "Maybe if I try to fight these people off, I won't get killed"
Maybe they weren't being rational. Maybe they were scared at being woken up by gunfire and warships. A crowd of panicky people in an enclosed space being fired on is not the right venue to demand perfect rationality.
That may be the case.
Rarely to the extent shown on the videos.
Look. It is correct to point out that Israel bears responsibilty for creating this chaotic violent situation, and ultimately for any deaths that come out of it. What I am trying to get at is that the people caught in this situation had more degrees of freedom than many of you are saying. I don't think they had to grab pipes and beat the shit out of the commandos. And if this was not an instinctual reaction but rather a conscious choice, it was a very poor one.
If a bunch of hippies come into your maritime territory after you warned them not to several times, blow them out of the water for all I care. That's your prerogative.
If you jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the night with guns onto a civilian ship in international waters, you are a fucking pirate.
I don't really care how people feel about pirates. Maybe you really dig Jack Sparrow, or are pissed you can't take your yacht past Somalia. But, to me, there's no real question that this was an act of piracy.
EDIT: fucking 'a'
Fixed for my people :^:
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534