christo-f Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 Once again, they understand quite well but when taken between ISrael's national interest and the Palestinian national interest (added with suicide bombings and so on, which whether justified is irrelevant because it is people's perceptions that create reality), I think it's safe to say that they don't care. I'm sure they would mostly wish the issue was different, but it's not and that is the choice they are faced with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 Meant to put this up a while back but moved more to the geopol aspects instead. But this is more photographic documentation of the "peaceful" protestors on the Mamara. Remember, I'm not trying to vilify these people I'm just trying to show that there were definitely provocateurs on the vessel in order to substantiate my argument that this flotilla was an implicit power play by the Turks. Sure the vast majority of the people on the vessels had humanitarian intentions but their agenda was hijacked by the small element that had a political agenda to incite lethal violence in order to make Israel respond disproportionately..., which they did and always do. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/reuters-under-fire-for-removing-weapons-blood-from-images-of-gaza-flotilla-1.294780 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 christo, if a riot team bursts into your house at night wearing full body armor and carrying machine guns... and you manage to stab one of them and somebody takes a picture of it, don't you think its a little ridiculous to make the riot squad dude out to be the victim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 They didn't have machine guns, they had paint ball guns. Can't remember the last time anyone was killed by one of those. your analogy is irrelevant being that my house wouldn't be sailing in to a military blockade to purposefully challenge the military. By announcing that they intended to sail in to somewhere that they knew was forbidden, that they ignored warnings by the military that if they did not change their course they would be boarded I think we can safely say that these guys made a conscious decision to challenge the military and deliberately provoked them in to a reaction. They were intentionally disobeying a military blockade, that was THEIR STATED MISSION before they even left port, it's no secret and not a simple accusation. Do you really think that these guys were naive enough to think that the military would just let them through or do you think they were taken by surprise? Do you think that stabbing some one or bashing them in the head with metal bars is proportionate when the soldiers were only using paint ball weapons? Do you also think that the response from the small element of passengers that attacked the soldiers would have been any different if it were in Gazan waters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie'sElement Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 Christo the paintball gun thing has been torn apart by now. I am good friends with someone who was there. Im trusting his account 100%. No evidence of paint, on Turkish boat, and furthermore some protester shot with 9mm bullets, not used by the Israelis, leading to a general belief that Israel fabricated REAL guns, to look like paintball guns, for diplomatic effect. There's lots popping up on this now, and while it;s a given that they were intent on passing through Israeli controlled waters, they were attacked in International waters, rendering anything related to that argument void as fuck. http://www.witnessgaza.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 I can't get youtube, it's blocked where I am. That argument is only void as fuck if you actually believe that these guys would have acted any differently if the IDF would have boarded a few hours later than they did. You really think the guys that attacked the soldiers cared that they were in Int waters or Gaza waters or you think they were more concerned with the boat being raided? Secondly, I haven't seen the paintball argument torn apart at all. As a matter of fact, many eyewitnesses on the other ships say they had paintball guns. I've even posted some of their recordings in this thread (the other boats where the soldiers weren't attacked and no passengers were shot). I'm pretty sure that the pellets wouldn't actually have been paintball guns from the local skirmish range either. I'd say that they would have had a heavier heavier in them meant to sting and stun but not break skin or cause any actual harm, more than likely having CS powder in them (pretty sure that's what they were). Really, why would they be actually using paint??! Do you guys SERIOUSLY believe that there where no people on the boat provoking a response and that if the IDF had have come on in Gazan waters that everyone would have sat down and sung Kumbaya? Seriously, that is the only argument here, that they were in international waters. Footage shows beyond any doubt that the soldiers were attacked before they even drew a weapon (paintball or live rounds) and you guys are saying that they had a right to because they were in international waters. So answer two questions; why didn't the IDF shoot any passengers on any of the other boats when they were boarded in international waters? Do yo think the IDF would have received a different response if they had waited for the boat to enter Gazan waters? Once again, I don't care who got shot or stabbed, I'm only trying to get you guys to see the play here, honestly can't believe you think this whole thing was innocent and on the level and the wasn't strategic and implicit political planning behind it!!??! ***Edit, hang on what?!! What makes you think that the Israeli military doesn't use 9mm weapons??! I can tell you straight that they and pretty much every military in the world does. Shit, the ISraelis even said on the first day that they had 9mm pistols on them that were taken by the attackers. Not trying to sound like a smart arse here mate but it sounds like you might be getting mislead a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 Israel is claiming that people aboard the Flotilla have ties to Al Qaeda.... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/30/reports-israeli-ships-attack-aid-flotilla-dead/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 Yeah, they've been saying that for a while now, To put it as politely as possible, I'm a tad skeptical of these claims. And hey, I have ties to Al Qaeda, a friend of mine talks to an ex-jihadist from Pakistan with unique experience on a pretty regular basis. Doesn't make me or him a Terry Wrist though. Look back at the post where I was talking about taking an action in the national interest and then framing the perspective of the event afterwards to deal with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 I rarely buy these claims about Al Qaeda connections, seems to me like a buzz phrase you can throw around with no proof to remove yourself from any responsibility to a situation. But I do agree with Christo, the IDF didn't attack on the other ships, but they just went overboard on this ship, I still don't think the IDF has an legitimate right to have killed those people just because they were attacked, because the IDF were still in the wrong for boarding the ship. They should have waited until the ships were within 10 miles of the Gaza coast and then boarded the ships. But then Israel have allowed 2 international observers to sit in on the inquiry into what happened on the ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLU Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 the islamic countries brotherhood so funny.. yesterday i have read that saudi arabia would allow the israeli air force to use its airspace to bomb iran(nothing new), and when iran speaks about bombing israel no pro-palestinian react against the fact that a lot of them would also die. UN is bullshit with a majority of islamic countries that would vote against israel in any case and any occasion same thing for the human rights commission. That's just a massive joke, furthermore when you see europe and specially UK coming with their great peace theory when we know that they are in majore part responsible of this hopeless situation. Everyday more muslims are killed by other muslims and nobody cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 15, 2010 Author Share Posted June 15, 2010 nobody cares This is the most important part to note. The Middle East and the Ummah in general is about as unified as my dick and Megan Fox's ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperface Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Turkey Accused of Using Chemical Weapons against PKK German experts have confirmed the authenticity of photographs that purport to show PKK fighters killed by chemical weapons. The evidence puts increasing pressure on the Turkish government, which has long been suspected of using such weapons against Kurdish rebels. German politicians are demanding an investigation. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,711536,00.html I'm no Turkey-lover, but this is some weird fucking article The chemical weapons used against the rebels are not mentioned by name and there are no pictures of these PKK casualties (which is probably a good thing). I also seem to suck at internet because the only Kurdish human rights site I found (http://www.khrp.org) doesn't mention chemical weapons other than those used by Saddam in 1988. We are just to assume that Turkey has used WP against semi-domestic insurgency just like Israel. Except Turkey used it against mountain guerrillas instead of plaincloth cheesebollah operating among civilian population... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 A little off topic, but christo: Regarding rational choice in geopolitical models, how is altruism dealt with in modeling and how are statistical models created that take into account "irrational" acts. As all acts are considered subjectively rational by the acting agent, but can be seen as otherwise from an observing perspective. More so just curious how the intel community actually uses game theory to make geo-political predictions. I personally feel the assumption of game theory that all players understand all the rules and know the eventual outcomes is actually a faulty premise as it ingores the relativism of action and rationality in general. Or rather, I suppose my main question is how is rationality commonly defined in the intel community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 I'm interested to hear Christof's answer also. I am not sure rationality is completely subjective, although I certainly understand that rationality is relative to cultural and historical understandings. I would assume that it is possible to stack the potential payoffs in such a way that the rules of the game become more apparent. Person A knows that they could attack or defend against Person B. If Person A knows that the likelihood of a negative outcome from attacking is X, Person A may or may not make a seemingly irrational decision. If that negative outcome is XX, that decision may be different. Simple carrot and stick reasoning. This would work on the assumption that there are degrees of irrationality rather than any 'irrational' decision being infinitely irrational, ie completely unresponsive to changing payoffs. I would also suggest that knowledge of cultural and historical contexts illuminate potentially unknown responses. It maybe possible to judge what person A might deem an irrational response by observing previous decisions person A has made. Or the decisions of those who have faced similar payoffs in similar contexts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I guess I'm speaking of rationality in a more restricted philosophical sense. Game theory assume each agent in the game has a full knowledge of the rules and various outcomes. However I reject this premise based on the notion that humans are finite beings and subject to "irrational" influences. So I'm just wondering how those models are bringing things like altruism into the mix. If evolutionary theory has had to adjust to them, I'm assuming that strong game-theory models have as well. We talked a little about it in my decision theory class, but didn't delve into it the way I would have liked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 Bounded rationality, I believe you are referring to. The best argument for incrementalism. However when it comes to strategic relations it's very rarely a clear picture that people deal with and most of the time people are hard enough up trying to work out if they trust their sources, whether that be a newspaper or an eyewitness to something. The methodology that I am familiar with is geopolitics, which is essentially the constraints of geography. It lets you know very simply what is and isn't possible. Basically the US wouldn't invade China from Afghanistan as there is a big fucking mountain range in the way. This won't tell you what small plays and tactics will be but it will tell you what strategy, grand strategy and imperatives are and then tactical perspective kicks in as you drill down. There are a number of methodologies and gaming things out is one of them. However I've never really come across anyone who uses game theory as much as one would in business/finance/econ. Of course you recognise a particular game when you see it and you work on the basic premises of knowing the opponent's goals, range of choices, past behaviour, perspectives, beliefs, pressures, etc. However it's not really a formal process where you map things out and use statistical models. When things are gamed out, such as the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites it will be done by a group of specialists in each field; Iranian military, naval strategists, etc. No real need for statistical models with this kind of stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 word, thanks for the concise and pithy response. answered exactly what i wanted to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.