# Turkish flagged vessel attack \[What if?--becomes What now?\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765 "2010-05-25T23:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/241 "2010-05-31T23:53:16Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > … Let’s let the UN look at the mission planning, translate the incident tapes, and see what develops. When a nation kills 10 civilians engaged in a mission of mercy, it’s freakin nuts to presume that its motives were all sweetness and light. Are you nuts? Do you support an international investigation? Why not? Yes. By all means, there should be investigation. Any and all available video, from all possible sources, should be closely examined, particularly looking to verify who attacked who first, and with what sort of weapon. All the audio in these videos should be examined by interpreters at the UN. It would be good if they got the real mission planning, but I won’t hold my breath. It is too easy to withhold, or doctor. “Proceed with caution and skepticism”. Likewise, if there is only one “official:” video, proceed with caution and skepticism. If there are multiple videos from multiple sources, and they are not just copies of each other, they can be compared - different groups can and will “edit” for their own spin. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/242 "2010-05-31T23:55:09Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > Okay, how about this: Iranian Green protesters start a parade without a permit. Soldiers come, some protesters start using lethal weapons! (read: thrown stones) against them, and the military starts spraying them with machine gun fire. > > Even if it were the case that it’s totally legal for the Israeli military (as opposed to custom officers) to board a civilian vessel in international waters, don’t you think the question of proportionality is relevant? Citizens holding a protest w/o a permit is hardly on par with foreign nationals trying to break a blockade. As to the question of proportionality in the case at hand, the video I saw showed a mob pounding soldiers (already lying on the deck) with what looked like tire irons. Pounding with lethal force. It looked like something out of _Lord of the Flies_. If further evidence comes out showing that the Israelis started the violence, then I’ll reconsider. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/243 "2010-05-31T23:55:15Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > This action, simply, is beyond the pale. Honest question: what actions, if any, can a nation take to enforce a military blockade? Followup: if they are allowed to take direct action involving the use of force to enforce a military blockade, what actions are they allowed to use in response to deadly force directed at soldiers enforcing the blockade? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/244 "2010-05-31T23:58:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > How about this, you don’t call facts “canards” just because they don’t fit in well with your argument? > > [url=[http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deadly-weapon/](http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deadly-weapon/)] > > Crowbars fit quite nicely. > … like to let someone smash you in the head with a crowbar (or a nice heavy rock) to prove how non-lethal it is, I’d probably advise against it. A good swing to the head with a crowbar can kill someone. I would have thought people would know that. Crowbar, hammer, if you can crush a skull with it, or punch a hole in the skull, you can kill - rather easily too. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/245 "2010-06-01T00:06:02Z")
Assume a group of Mexican activists have been loudly trumpetting to the press their intention to illegally run the border of the US. They have other activists from other nations, as well as a handful of American’s who think the border policy is bad. Upon finally reaching the border, the activists are stopped by Border Patrol agents. One group of activists, however, rather than surrender to be processed, attacks the agents. The agents first respond with pepper spray and tasers, but when several agents are down, and the activists have taken their weapons, the agents move up to lethal force, killing a number of activists. Who is in the wrong, and why? (I am aware that this issue is slightly different, but I’m curious to hear people’s responses.) ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/246 "2010-06-01T00:06:30Z")
Israelis discover new WMDs: crowbars and plastic chairs. Kill at least twenty, injure over 70. _Some_ of these victims may have been wielding the newfound WMDs at the time of their demise. Meanwhile, they pride themselves in running one of the World’s largest open-air prisons. Because, as we all know, everyone in Gaza is a terrorist. And has access to crowbars and plastic chairs. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/247 "2010-06-01T00:07:05Z")
> [@Tristan](#): > > Assume a group of Mexican activists have been loudly trumpetting to the press their intention to illegally run the border of the US. They have other activists from other nations, as well as a handful of American’s who think the border policy is bad. > > Upon finally reaching the border, the activists are stopped by Border Patrol agents. One group of activists, however, rather than surrender to be processed, attacks the agents. The agents first respond with pepper spray and tasers, but when several agents are down, and the activists have taken their weapons, the agents move up to lethal force, killing a number of activists. > > Who is in the wrong, and why? Israel! ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/248 "2010-06-01T00:16:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > A good swing to the head with a crowbar can kill someone. I would have thought people would know that. Crowbar, hammer, if you can crush a skull with it, or punch a hole in the skull, you can kill - rather easily too. [QUOTE=me] crowbars can kill you [/QUOTE] No one’s disputing that; you’re misrepresenting what I said. Again, a heavy thrown rock can be a lethal weapon. Most anything with a sufficient weight and rigidity can. But there’s a plain difference between crowbars/rocks and guns. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/249 "2010-06-01T00:19:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Honest question: what actions, if any, can a nation take to enforce a military blockade? > Followup: if they are allowed to take direct action involving the use of force to enforce a military blockade, what actions are they allowed to use in response to deadly force directed at soldiers enforcing the blockade? Quite frankly, I’ve no interest in your questions. Israel crossed the line this time. I completely oppose the actions of Israel in regard to the flotilla, and I suggest that if Israel desires the continued unconditional support of the United States, that they cease duplicating the actions of their enemy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/250 "2010-06-01T00:19:42Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > No one’s disputing that; you’re misrepresenting what I said. Again, a heavy thrown rock can be a lethal weapon. Most anything with a sufficient weight and rigidity can. But there’s a plain difference between crowbars/rocks and guns. Agreed. Five people beating you with a crowbar is a lot dicier than some schlub lobbing a rock at you from 30 yards away. Military types can pretty easily defend themselves against rock throwers, but when they throw you to the ground and start beating you with a tire iron… I say lethal force is not unjustified. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/251 "2010-06-01T00:20:03Z")
> [@Tristan](#): > > Assume a group of Mexican activists have been loudly trumpetting to the press their intention to illegally run the border of the US. They have other activists from other nations, as well as a handful of American’s who think the border policy is bad. > > Upon finally reaching the border, the activists are stopped by Border Patrol agents. One group of activists, however, rather than surrender to be processed, attacks the agents. The agents first respond with pepper spray and tasers, but when several agents are down, and the activists have taken their weapons, the agents move up to lethal force, killing a number of activists. > > Who is in the wrong, and why? > > (I am aware that this issue is slightly different, but I’m curious to hear people’s responses.) A serious response: the moral wrong here falls on the group of activists who attacked initially. The border agents may have committed an error of negligence, however, if they failed to make appropriate preparations to control what’s essentially a riot, even knowing one might occur. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/252 "2010-06-01T00:22:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Agreed. Five people beating you with a crowbar is a lot dicier than some schlub lobbing a rock at you from 30 yards away. Military types can pretty easily defend themselves against rock throwers, but when they throw you to the ground and start beating you with a tire iron… I say lethal force is not unjustified. On viewing the video, it is disturbing–if the video is not something taken out of context, I believe that the soldiers acted reasonably in response, and can’t fault the individual soldiers for how handled the situation, once forced into it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/253 "2010-06-01T00:25:48Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Quite frankly, I’ve no interest in your questions. Israel crossed the line this time. So you refuse to identify what that line is, whether or not military blockades are allowable let alone how they can legitimately be enforced or what can be done about lethal force directed at those enforcing the blockade… but you know they’re wrong. Check. > [@RedFury](#): > > Israelis discover new WMDs Yep, that’s the claim. Your argument is refreshingly straight forward and reveals no twisting of the facts to craft disingenuous analogies. > [@RedFury](#): > > Meanwhile, they pride themselves in running one of the World’s largest open-air prisons. Yes yes, damn the Geneva Convention! [ > [@](#): > > Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. > > The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons > for fearing: > > (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, > (b) that the control may not be effective, or > (c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods. > > The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers. > > Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed. > […] > Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary. > […] > Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. > […] > The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons > […] > Art. 62. Subject to imperative reasons of security, protected persons in occupied territories shall be permitted to receive the individual relief consignments sent to them. > […] > Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. > > Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws. > > The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them. > […] > Art. 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment. > […] > Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or > property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. ]([http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/254 "2010-06-01T00:34:38Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > No one’s disputing that; you’re misrepresenting what I said. Again, a heavy thrown rock can be a lethal weapon. Most anything with a sufficient weight and rigidity can. But there’s a plain difference between crowbars/rocks and guns. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. I am sorry, but if I have a gun, and someone is coming at me with a crowbar, I will shoot. I’m not going to just stand there and let someone beat me to death, which would be a very real possibility. The same would apply if someone came at me with a knife. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/255 "2010-06-01T00:37:14Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Yeesh dude, get a grip on your biases. Let’s let the UN look at the mission planning, translate the incident tapes, and see what develops. When a nation kills 10 civilians engaged in a mission of mercy, it’s freakin nuts to presume that its motives were all sweetness and light. Are you nuts? Again: drop the personal comments immediately. They’re not allowed in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/256 "2010-06-01T00:37:26Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So you refuse to identify what that line is, whether or not military blockades are allowable let alone how they can legitimately be enforced or what can be done about lethal force directed at those enforcing the blockade… but you know they’re wrong. > > Check. In fact, I’ve personally identified that line, and I oppose it. (You’ve personally identified the line and you support it; so don’t hand me your sarcasm.) Do you, seriously, want me to mark off support for Israel as a consideration as to who I vote for? 'Cause I’m headed that way. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/257 "2010-06-01T00:48:47Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > In fact, I’ve personally identified that line, and I oppose it. No, actually you _haven’t_. Lines, by their very nature, have two sides. You have identified events that you state are over the line, well and good. But you will not answer what would be on the other side of the line, at all. You will not state how a blockade may validly be enforced nor how troops enforcing a valid blockade may defend themselves. Absent those factors you are not stating that there is a line and recent events crossed it, but that you object to recent events and that’s all there is to it. > [@Frank](#): > > so don’t hand me your sarcasm. No sarcasm. You’ve actually done everything I said. -you refuse to identify what that line is -you refuse to state whether or not military blockades are allowable let alone how they can legitimately be enforced or what can be done about lethal force directed at those enforcing the blockade -but you know they’re wrong Your argument seems to start and stop at the last point. You know it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because you know it’s wrong, but you can’t identify what the actually dividing line is or why it’s there. It’s just wrong. > [@Frank](#): > > Do you, seriously, want me to mark off support for Israel as a consideration as to who I vote for? No, I seriously want to you support your claims in a GD thread. If you’re angling for more an IMHO “I don’t like it, and that’s all there is to it.” well, then so be it. But you’ve posted a claim in GD and said that a certain action crosses a line, but you have as of yet been totally unwilling to actually discuss where that line is drawn and why. You haven’t even addressed what action you object to. Having a blockade? Enforcing the blockade? Self-defense against lethal force in the course of enforcing the blockade? What, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/258 "2010-06-01T00:52:55Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. > I am sorry, but if I have a gun, and someone is coming at me with a crowbar, I will shoot. I’m not going to just stand there and let someone beat me to death, which would be a very real possibility. The same would apply if someone came at me with a knife. This is something of a moot point now–after seeing the video, I have to say that use of lethal force by the soldiers may have been justified, given the situation. But, not all deadly weapons are created equal. Someone running at a policeman with a crowbar is not the same as someone shooting at a policeman. Especially in a riot, government has a responsibility to use appropriate force and maintain order in a situation, at least as best as possible. Here, the soldiers responded to a tough, chaotic situation as best they could. But if Israel did actually need to use military force against the activists, they should have done it with a much more effective setup, namely with (1) more troops and (2) during the daytime. Because outside of all the legal issues, whenever a dozen plus people end up dead, someone royally f’ed up. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/259 "2010-06-01T01:05:04Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > But if Israel did actually need to use military force against the activists, they should have done it with a much more effective setup, namely with (1) more troops and (2) during the daytime. Because outside of all the legal issues, whenever a dozen plus people end up dead, someone royally f’ed up. You do it at night because at night, people are less alert and easier to surprise. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765/260 "2010-06-01T01:14:58Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > This is something of a moot point now–after seeing the video, I have to say that use of lethal force by the soldiers may have been justified, given the situation. Fair enough. > [@Zephyurs](#): > > But, not all deadly weapons are created equal. Someone running at a policeman with a crowbar is not the same as someone shooting at a policeman. Especially in a riot, government has a responsibility to use appropriate force and maintain order in a situation, at least as best as possible. We disagree on the amount of force maybe, but again, fair enough. We simply agree to disagree? > [@Zephyurs](#): > > Here, the soldiers responded to a tough, chaotic situation as best they could. But if Israel did actually need to use military force against the activists, they should have done it with a much more effective setup, namely with (1) more troops and (2) during the daytime. Because outside of all the legal issues, whenever a dozen plus people end up dead, someone royally f’ed up. Night time should (in theory) allow you to catch more people off guard, tired, and less alert. More troops? Definitely. The seemingly best to do it is to swarm in fast, with a lot of cops/troops. The idea is to surprise and disorient, so they can’t effectively oppose (the hope being that fewer people on both sides will get hurt). Ideally, they don’t have time or the chance to oppose you at all. It looks at least for now, that the commandos were not expecting resistance. No resistance had happened on previous boardings. They may have gotten complacent, or simply assumed things would go quietly. They forgot the Big Rule, which states Assume Nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/turkish-flagged-vessel-attack-what-if-becomes-what-now/540765.md?page=14)