Stratfor - Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

[Apocalypse]

I'll return to your other points once we clear this little matter below up.



FAIL



FAIL



"They should have had the intelligence to know that the flotila was carrying violent protesters that would try and lynch and murder the soldiers, and have therefore came equipped with assault rifles and not paintball guns."

That's as close as you come to saying what gunner already said and you and Tashah attacked him for.



Sorry, conditions not met. The Hamas / Flotilla thread was 147 pages long, in all that time I'm sure you'll find unequivocal criticism - not saying that other people / Israelis are asking but you / Apocalypse dare to criticise.

Either that or you'll be saved by a Moderator first.

:roll:

Let me see if I get it straight:
You've pressed on the links I've bothered myself to provide for you to prove that I have indeed stated that intelligence has failed to find that the protesters are going to incite violence and that soldiers should not have been dropped onto a massive violent crowd - identical claims to the conclusions reached by the Eiland inquiry.

You've then realized you were caught on a lie, and pushed to the corner. Not knowing how to get yourself out of the desperate situation, you've simply decided to quote my posts where I'm proving you wrong and write "FAIL" to it, as if it means anything, without any further explanation.

By all means IC, those links I've provided you with are links where I'm stating what you claimed I haven't stated, and I've also provided a link where gunner is blaming the commanders of the soldiers for the violence instead of the activists themselves when I've asked him if he blames the activists for it.

Throughout my time here I have proven many people wrong. A lot simply do not show up anymore, others admit being wrong and make the best out of it, but yours is a reaction that I've yet to see. Simply labeling it as "FAIL" without providing your version is an insuring policy that you'll fail to impress and that your credibility would be thrown to the dogs.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Let me see if I get it straight:
You've pressed on the links I've bothered myself to provide for you to prove that I have indeed stated that intelligence has failed to find that the protesters are going to incite violence and that soldiers should not have been dropped onto a massive violent crowd - identical claims to the conclusions reached by the Eiland inquiry.

You've then realized you were caught on a lie, and pushed to the corner. Not knowing how to get yourself out of the desperate situation, you've simply decided to quote my posts where I'm proving you wrong and write "FAIL" to it, as if it means anything, without any further explanation.

By all means IC, those links I've provided you with are links where I'm stating what you claimed I haven't stated, and I've also provided a link where gunner is blaming the commanders of the soldiers for the violence instead of the activists themselves when I've asked him if he blames the activists for it.

Throughout my time here I have proven many people wrong. A lot simply do not show up anymore, others admit being wrong and make the best out of it, but yours is a reaction that I've yet to see. Simply labeling it as "FAIL" without providing your version is an insuring policy that you'll fail to impress and that your credibility would be thrown to the dogs.

-- If you clearly criticised the decision making in those threads then I apologise. I didn't see them in any of those threads but I may have misread --

Just to explain for you were you failed miserably. I'm looking for clear cut critique of the decision making that led to Israeli commandos being dropped onto the flotilla unprepared.

It's what gunner originally said and you had a go at him for it. I can't say it any clearer than that. Oh, "FAIL" does it very clearly.

147 pages - you had ample opportunity and we're on a ticking clock before a Mod comes and saves you.

 

[Gardener]

Just to explain for you were you failed miserably. I'm looking for clear cut critique of the decision making that led to Israeli commandos being dropped onto the flotilla unprepared.

.

The decision making is certainly effed up, since these low life Islamist thugs were a known commodity.

The actual "fail", however, belongs to those whose attacks upon anything and everything Israel is so Pavlovian that they transfer RESPONSIBILITY for the ensuing attacks from the perpetrators to the targets thereof.

 

[Apocalypse]

Just to explain for you were you failed miserably. I'm looking for clear cut critique of the decision making that led to Israeli commandos being dropped onto the flotilla unprepared.

Here's where I've clearly criticized the decision makers exactly at the same way and magnitude that the Eiland inquiry has:

First post:

Israelis want to know why the soldiers weren't equipped with assault rifles and how come they haven't dropped smoke bombs when dropping the soldiers on the ship.

In this post I have criticized the way they've sent the soldiers on board, equipped with paintball rifles instead of assault rifles and not dropping the soldiers onto the ship in the right and proffessional way, effectively risking their lives. The Eiland inquiry has reached the same conclusion.

Note: This post was made in a reply to you, IC, so you were perfectly aware of it, contrary to your claim.

Second post:

And they haven't even done that.
They said that it was a big intelligence failure since they've sent our troops with paintball guns while the facts from the incident imply that they should have been sent with assault rifles instead.
They want to know how come Israel was unable to find out that this ship was carrying armed people with a hostile intent before boarding the ship.

In this post I am speaking about the intelligence failure to find out the true intentions of the activists. To realize that they're going to be a threat to the soldiers and that they will try to attack them. This failure has effectively risked the soldiers' lives. The Eiland inquiry has reached the same conclusion.

Third post:

And yes, as you're stating here the most popular question among Israelis is how come the IDF wasn't ready for a violent confrontation.
They should have had the intelligence to know that the flotila was carrying violent protesters that would try and lynch and murder the soldiers, and have therefore came equipped with assault rifles and not paintball guns.

Same statements as before, criticizing the intelligence for not finding that the activists plan to incite violence, criticize the navy for not equipping the soldiers for a war-zone situation.

It's what gunner originally said and you had a go at him for it. I can't say it any clearer than that. Oh, "FAIL" does it very clearly.

As I've already proven to you with the link in my previous comment, gunner has tried to lay the blame for the violence on the commanders of the operation. The Eiland inquiry has found him to be wrong and me(along with anyone who has seen the evidence and wasn't turning a blind eye) to be correct when it reached the claim that it was not the soldiers or the commanders' mistakes that have caused the violence on board the Mavi Marmara, but the violent activists who have planned to incite violence all along.

The "sins" described in the Eiland inquiry, regarding the mistakes of the commanders, were not "sins" that were committed against the activists, but "sins" that were committed against the soldiers, putting their lives in danger.
The soldiers on board of the ship however have reacted in a perfect way and their use of violence was necessary, proportionate and justified.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

If you have issues with Moderation there's a place to post it. Here is not that place

 

[alexa]

The soldiers on board of the ship however have reacted in a perfect way and their use of violence was necessary, proportionate and justified.

Fascinating, how did they justify this

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.

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

There was also I think, according to autopsy, one person shot in the head four or five times at point blank range.

 

[Apocalypse]

Fascinating, how did they justify this



Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

There was also I think, according to autopsy, one person shot in the head four or five times at point blank range.

The Eiland inquiry IC was referring to has found that the soldiers have committed selective fire and did not cause unnecessary injuries. Where power was used it was used to neutralize threats to the soldiers' lives.
You don't have to believe the Eiland inquiry since it's not an inquiry that was meant for the world's eyes, but for the military's self-improvement, engaging in self-criticism to find mistakes and correct them in the future.
However, IC was referring to this inquiry trying to use it in argument.

 

[Gardener]

Fascinating, how did they justify this



Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

There was also I think, according to autopsy, one person shot in the head four or five times at point blank range.

Gee -- could it be that when an Islamist thug intent on killing you by striking you repeatedly in the head with a steel rod, he isn't exactly very far away? :roll:

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Here's where I've clearly criticized the decision makers exactly at the same way and magnitude that the Eiland inquiry has:

First post:

“Israelis want to know why the soldiers weren't equipped with assault rifles and how come they haven't dropped smoke bombs when dropping the soldiers on the ship.”
In this post I have criticized the way they've sent the soldiers on board, equipped with paintball rifles instead of assault rifles and not dropping the soldiers onto the ship in the right and proffessional way, effectively risking their lives. The Eiland inquiry has reached the same conclusion.

Note: This post was made in a reply to you, IC, so you were perfectly aware of it, contrary to your claim.

I am aware of it and it's the same as it was then - you're claiming something written in the third person (e.g. Israelis want to know) as something you (first person – e.g. “I want to know”) were saying. You don't even try to claim first person plural (e.g. we want to know)

Not acceptable, FAIL.

Second post:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse
And they haven't even done that.
“They said that it was a big intelligence failure since they've sent our troops with paintball guns while the facts from the incident imply that they should have been sent with assault rifles instead.
They want to know how come Israel was unable to find out that this ship was carrying armed people with a hostile intent before boarding the ship.”
In this post I am speaking about the intelligence failure to find out the true intentions of the activists. To realize that they're going to be a threat to the soldiers and that they will try to attack them. This failure has effectively risked the soldiers' lives. The Eiland inquiry has reached the same conclusion.

You're claiming something written in the third person as something you (first person) were saying.

Not acceptable, FAIL.

Third post:

“And yes, as you're stating here the most popular question among Israelis is how come the IDF wasn't ready for a violent confrontation.
They should have had the intelligence to know that the flotila was carrying violent protesters that would try and lynch and murder the soldiers, and have therefore came equipped with assault rifles and not paintball guns.
Same statements as before, criticizing the intelligence for not finding that the activists plan to incite violence, criticize the navy for not equipping the soldiers for a war-zone situation.”

As I said in my previous – that's the closest but none of it is clear and unequivocal. No cigar, FAIL

--As I've already proven to you

All you've proven is that either the “Royal WE” is how Israelis talk (which I don't believe)

or

You don't know the difference between something written in the first person vs something written in the third. If this is the case – read this website first before you make further claims.

or

You did no such thing as you now claim and as I said originally – Gunner wrote that originally and got lambasted for it. You may take your pick – I know what I see in front of me despite the time I've given you to find it.

 

[Apocalypse]

I am aware of it and it's the same as it was then - you're claiming something written in the third person (e.g. Israelis want to know) as something you (first person – e.g. “I want to know”) were saying. You don't even try to claim first person plural (e.g. we want to know)

That's absurd, I'm an Israeli and I was speaking in the name of my nation or at least the majority of it.

You're claiming something written in the third person as something you (first person) were saying.

Because I'm backing those statements.

As I said in my previous – that's the closest but none of it is clear and unequivocal.

Once more, that's absurd and borderline insane, it couldn't be clearer that I'm criticizing the IDF for risking the soldiers lives by not getting them ready for violence from the activists' side, just as the Eiland inquiry found and concluded.

All you've proven is that either the “Royal WE” is how Israelis talk (which I don't believe)

Follow this link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...d-attack-against-idf-raid.html#post1058800404

In this thread gunner and I were arguing about who's to blame with the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara.
I've asked gunner if he believes the activists are to blame for the violence, he's responded with his statement that the commanders of the soldiers are to blame.
It was crystal clear back then, it is crystal clear right now.

You don't know the difference between something written in the first person vs something written in the third. If this is the case – read this website first before you make further claims.

or

You did no such thing as you now claim and as I said originally – Gunner wrote that originally and got lambasted for it. You may take your pick – I know what I see in front of me despite the time I've given you to find it.

To conclude;
Your main argument against me here seems to be the claim that I was not speaking for myself.
Due to the context of the posts and the sentences themselves I find it to be quite an absurd and a very weak argument, one that by no means would be found acceptable by the standard human logic.
It seems as if you were trying to find something you could hold onto and in the peak of desperation you've gone with the weakest argument you could find. I'm sorry but your argument is not acceptable and as it remains you were proven wrong.

As I said, I wasn't waiting for an apology from you since I knew I wouldn't get it, which is saddening considering it would have made you look much better than this pathetic attempt at an argument.
"You used third body terms", pffff.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

That's absurd, I'm an Israeli and I was speaking in the name of my nation or at least the majority of it.
Because I'm backing those statements.
Once more, that's absurd and borderline insane, it couldn't be clearer that I'm criticizing the IDF for risking the soldiers lives by not getting them ready for violence from the activists' side, just as the Eiland inquiry found and concluded.
Follow this link:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...d-attack-against-idf-raid.html#post1058800404

In this thread gunner and I were arguing about who's to blame with the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara.
I've asked gunner if he believes the activists are to blame for the violence, he's responded with his statement that the commanders of the soldiers are to blame.
It was crystal clear back then, it is crystal clear right now.


To conclude;
Your main argument against me here seems to be the claim that I was not speaking for myself.
Due to the context of the posts and the sentences themselves I find it to be quite an absurd and a very weak argument, one that by no means would be found acceptable by the standard human logic.
It seems as if you were trying to find something you could hold onto and in the peak of desperation you've gone with the weakest argument you could find. I'm sorry but your argument is not acceptable and as it remains you were proven wrong.

As I said, I wasn't waiting for an apology from you since I knew I wouldn't get it, which is saddening considering it would have made you look much better than this pathetic attempt at an argument.
"You used third body terms", pffff.

It's "third person."

If English isn't your first language then I understand however having read many of your posts I highly doubt anyone could mistake they (other people say) vs "I" (I say this)

As it is, this is an English speaking forum and I find your reply unsatisfactory.

I'm afraid you FAIL

 

[Apocalypse]

If English isn't your first language then I understand however having read many of your posts I highly doubt anyone could mistake they (other people say) vs "I" (I say this)

Don't even try.
Queen Elizabeth herself could read the first post and tell you that it is crystal clear that when I said "Israelis want to..." I was referring to myself as well.
There's no dodging around that.
And in the second post, it is crystal clear that I am backing the words of the author of the article.
Nevertheless all that doesn't matter since in the third post I am even saying those sentences in a first-body way, the kind of sentences that even you can actually relate to the poster who says them. (yeah, weird uh?)

I found your mumbling about "third-body" and "first-body" words to be a very weak attempt to avoid the actual implication of those posts' existence, that your claims about me were absolutely wrong.
Say "you fail" all you like to, that doesn't change the reality.
As torn-off as your attempts to twist my words right now as to avoid the consequences of your lies, your credibility has indeed just crashed to zero.

Now I'm off to bed, good night to you, or them, or they, or we. Hopefully you'll understand one of them.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Now I'm off to bed, good night to you, or them, or they, or we. Hopefully you'll understand one of them.

Good night to you too Apo, if you're still friends with your literacy tutor it might be worth asking them to cover "first" and "third" person writings.

I leave it at that.

 

[Gardener]

I'm afraid you FAIL

Are you somehow under the impression that your repeating these little playground taunts in posting after posting after posting is impressing anybody?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Are you somehow under the impression that your repeating these little playground taunts in posting after posting after posting is impressing anybody?

Look, I'm aware 3 of you operate as a little pack, thanking each other and watching each other's backs on any "Israel" threads.

Maybe you can explain to Apocalypse then that a post saying "Israelis are asking this" or "They have asked whatever" is not the same as "I am asking" or "I am saying"

Especially if we are also not generalising about other races / peoples views.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...eli-families-buying-homes.html#post1058850095

Here, Apocalypse accuses someone of "hatespeech" by generalising - yet it is his defence and claim that he is speaking for himself and all jews - i.e. the "Royal We"

You can't have it both ways - using a phrase yourself and then accusing someone else of racism when they do it too.

Well, you can if you are hypocritical about things.

Nowhere in Apocalypse's linked posts regarding the discussion of this thread does it become clear that he is speaking for himself - the posts are written in the 3rd person.

If you don't understand that basic bit of English Grammar, I suggest you educate yourself. This is an "English" forum after all and clarity is important - especially when false accusations and false claims are being contested.

If you three can't be critical friends and be honest about it - go ask your English teacher or go post a poll. I'll stand by the verdict.

 

[kaya'08]

Look, I'm aware 3 of you operate as a little pack, thanking each other and watching each other's backs on any "Israel" threads.

And the rat pack still cant win an argument unless a mod whizzes in and thread bans the opp.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

Final warning on this. Commenting about Moderator action, suggesting Moderators target the opposition, and continuing to make accusations against people with regards to moderator action as an attempt to discourage reporting has no place up here. If it continues here, or elsewere by the same people, it will not be dealt with by means of a warning. These kind of comments are a self-fulfilling prophecy

 

[Gardener]

Look, I'm aware 3 of you operate as a little pack, thanking each other and watching each other's backs on any "Israel" threads.

At least get your terminology right.

it's gaggle of geese, pride of lions, flock of doves, CONSORTIUM of Israel conspirators.

 

[Apocalypse]

Look, I'm aware 3 of you operate as a little pack, thanking each other and watching each other's backs on any "Israel" threads.

Maybe you can explain to Apocalypse then that a post saying "Israelis are asking this" or "They have asked whatever" is not the same as "I am asking" or "I am saying"

Especially if we are also not generalising about other races / peoples views.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...eli-families-buying-homes.html#post1058850095

Here, Apocalypse accuses someone of "hatespeech" by generalising - yet it is his defence and claim that he is speaking for himself and all jews - i.e. the "Royal We"

You can't have it both ways - using a phrase yourself and then accusing someone else of racism when they do it too.

Well, you can if you are hypocritical about things.

Nowhere in Apocalypse's linked posts regarding the discussion of this thread does it become clear that he is speaking for himself - the posts are written in the 3rd person.

If you don't understand that basic bit of English Grammar, I suggest you educate yourself. This is an "English" forum after all and clarity is important - especially when false accusations and false claims are being contested.

If you three can't be critical friends and be honest about it - go ask your English teacher or go post a poll. I'll stand by the verdict.

Infinite Chaos,

In your posts here you have accused me of not reaching the same conclusions as the Eiland committee did.
In other words, you were saying that I didn't criticize the way the operation was handled; the intelligence failure to predict the violent intentions of the activists and the operational failure to land the soldiers unharmed and safely, among others.
In just the three posts that I have managed to find in the few minutes I was searching the boards, we have one post where I'm stating the Israeli point of view (how the majority of the Israelis reacted to the operation), we have one post where I'm backing up the words of an article, explaining the meaning of the author of that article, and we have another post where I myself am stating, in first-person terms, that there were mistakes being made during the operation.

Basically even if you are to claim that using "third-person" terms imply that I do not speak for myself, which is something that wouldn't be logically accepted by a three years old let alone a mature adult, the third post includes "first-person" terms and hence even by your unacceptable logic it is clearly approved, you can't do much against it so you might as well admit it.

Now I could point you towards many comments where alexa for example says something like "we in the UK believe that..." and it is just as crystal clear that she's including herself just as it is that I'm including myself when I'm referring to the opinion by the majority of the Israelis.
I could also point you towards countless of users who explain an article's author's words and it is crystal clear that they are seeking to back those words, just as I was, using third-person terms.
However I would prefer to spare my time on this since it is crystal clear that you're not interested in actually debating, but like the rest of your pack, you seek to demonize the Jewish state and spread your hatred against it on every form, using every argument your mind could collect. Unfortunately for you, if referring to "third-person" terms being used and stating that this means it's not the poster's words he's promoting but someone he disagrees with is the peak of your logical capabilities, you have no room in such a forum, where people should depend purely on logical arguments, arguments that make sense.

Hopefully this was enough for you to understand how ridiculous and pathetic your assertions appear to the logical mind.

 

[alexa]

Apoc, for one of the things. I am guessing you use a translator. You keep saying first body or third body. The translation for that is wrong. It is person not body.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apoc, for one of the things. I am guessing you use a translator. You keep saying first body or third body. The translation for that is wrong. It is person not body.

No, I'm afraid I was not using a translator. I'm translating myself the words from Hebrew to English as I type them in a post, and in Hebrew the word for "third person" is "goof shlishy".
The word "goof" in Hebrew means body, the word "shlishy" in Hebrew means third.
Thanks for the correction, I will be saying "person" from now on.

It's the same reason why I'm usually saying "judge" when referring to a referee, since the fitting word in Hebrew is being used for both.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

No, I'm afraid I was not using a translator. I'm translating myself the words from Hebrew to English as I type them in a post--

It might help you if you tried the link I posted explaining why a third person sentence is so different from a first person sentence

In your posts here you have accused me of not reaching the same conclusions as the Eiland committee did.

No.

Firstly, gunner clearly stated that the fault for what happened on the Mavi Marmaris was not the fault of the commandos on the ground and he was attacked for it.

If you've ever been a grunt – as Gunner or I have been, you'll know that as the soldier on the ground, yours is not to choose whether you go in or what your terms are, you just do. Your superiors both militarily and politically make those command decisions, they make decisions on what support you will have and whether they have enough or even the right intelligence. That's never your decision as a footsoldier carrying out the orders. That's why he didn't say it was the commando's fault.

I also trained as an officer before deciding I'd rather be a “grunt” - I trained in some of the decision making process and saw things from the other side. I will go further and blame (from my personal experience) the Israeli military decision-makers. Gunner didn't go that far – I spent less time in the armed services however than him and he speaks from far greater experience.

The Eiland committee (which hadn't convened when you were supposedly offering your “criticism”) decided the commando's did well but mistakes lay elsewhere. Well, what a surprise!

9 activists dead, Israeli commandos shot and dropped into a situation they weren't informed about – the blockade on Gaza eased because the boarding turned out the wrong action to have taken. Most people with any military training would see the conclusions that would come. Gunner did and was criticised by you and others for airing his views.

-- In other words, you were saying that I didn't criticize the way the operation was handled; the intelligence failure to predict the violent intentions of the activists and the operational failure to land the soldiers unharmed and safely, among others.
In just the three posts that I have managed to find in the few minutes I was searching the boards, we have one post where I'm stating the Israeli point of view (how the majority of the*Israelis*reacted to the operation), we have one post where I'm backing up the words of an article, explaining the meaning of the author of that article, and we have another post where I myself am stating, in first-person terms, that there were mistakes being made during the operation.

Basically even if you are to claim that using "third-person" terms imply that I do not speak for myself, which is something that wouldn't be logically accepted by a three years old let alone a mature adult, the third post includes "first-person" terms and hence even by your unacceptable logic it is clearly approved, you can't do much against it so you might as well admit it.

Now I could point you towards many comments where alexa for example says something like "we in the UK believe that..." and it is just as crystal clear that she's including herself just as it is that I'm including myself when I'm referring to the opinion by the majority of the*Israelis.

In a million years I will never agree your version. Why? Because when an experienced soldier said the same thing in blunt soldier fashion – you attacked him for saying what the Eiland committee would say weeks / months later.

You attacked him and now claim to have said the same thing. I don't believe you, no matter how many times “mbig” or “gardener” thank you for it.

-- However I would prefer to spare my time on this since it is crystal clear that you're not interested in actually debating, but like the rest of your pack, you seek to demonize the*Jewish state*and spread your hatred against it on every form, using every argument your mind could collect.

I wondered how long before you tried that little appeal.

Unfortunately for you, if referring to "third-person" terms being used and stating that this means it's not the poster's words he's promoting but someone he disagrees with is the peak of your logical capabilities, you have no room in such a forum, where people should depend purely on logical arguments, arguments that make sense.

Hopefully this was enough for you to understand how ridiculous and pathetic your assertions appear to the logical mind.

I say no more about the emboldened bit.

Otherwise, say what you will about your “critique”, you attacked an ex soldier of another country who stated in plain terms what the Eiland committee would say weeks later. You are trying to pretend that you said the same thing weeks ago when your posts clearly state otherwise and your attacks on an ex professional soldier show clearly where your thoughts lay.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Considering that it was either shoot or be shot, I don't think there are many who'd consider the "get shot at" to be a smart move.

'Firing warning shots' is a pretty smart move. But shooting them straight in the heads and then calling them warning shots is even smarter.

 

[Apocalypse]

No.

Actually yes you did, I think it was quite obvious that was what you were implying and that was what the argument was about, you've tried to refer to the use of "third person terms" in the first and second post as if it means that I didn't use those to state my own opinion, as well as others'.
Nevertheless in the third post I was clearly using first person terms, so there is no reasoning behind your claims that I have not made the same conclusions as the Eiland committee did.

Firstly, gunner clearly stated that the fault for what happened on the Mavi Marmaris was not the fault of the commandos on the ground and he was attacked for it.

That's irrational of you, I would never "attack" gunner for making the statement that the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara is not the fault of the commandos on the ground, that'd be ridiculous and insane since it's my own position that it was not their fault, and neither was it the commanders' fault, it was the activists fault, 100% of it.

gunner however has blamed the commanders for the violence on board the Mavi Maramra, contrary to my opinion and to the conclusion reached by the Eiland committee, which is the same, and that's what you fail to see right now, perhaps deliberately perhaps not.

If you've ever been a grunt – as Gunner or I have been, you'll know that as the soldier on the ground, yours is not to choose whether you go in or what your terms are, you just do.

Trust me when I say that you do not want to enter a competition against me as to who is having more experience as a grunt. It's ridiculous and would be counter productive from your side.
Nevertheless I'm not at all in disagreement with your statement here.

Your superiors both militarily and politically make those command decisions, they make decisions on what support you will have and whether they have enough or even the right intelligence. That's never your decision as a footsoldier carrying out the orders. That's why he didn't say it was the commando's fault.

Yes, but he did lay the blame for the violence on the commanders, which is absolutely wrong. The Eiland committee has reached the fact that it was neither the soldiers on the ground nor their commanders' fault that violence has occurred on board of the Mavi Marmara. It was plainly the planning of the activists themselves.

I also trained as an officer before deciding I'd rather be a “grunt” - I trained in some of the decision making process and saw things from the other side. I will go further and blame (from my personal experience) the Israeli military decision-makers. Gunner didn't go that far – I spent less time in the armed services however than him and he speaks from far greater experience.

First thing first, gunner has indeed went that far, and that's my entire claim against him here.
He was making the assertion that the commanders' are to blame for the violence, and that doesn't make any sense nor does it have any supportive arguments for it.
The violence is clearly the fault of those who've wished it and have gained it in the end, those who've planned to incite it all along, the activists themselves.

Secondly since you are saying here that you do blame the commanders' for the violence, you are obviously going against the conclusions of the Eiland committee which brings us back to the point when I've asked you why you're using it, if it completely contradicts your assertions.

The Eiland committee (which hadn't convened when you were supposedly offering your “criticism”) decided the commando's did well but mistakes lay elsewhere. Well, what a surprise!

I believe the same, and I have stated the same before, and that was pretty much the Israeli public opinion.
However I'll repeat myself to the deaf ears that lie before me, the "sins" committed by the commanders were "sins" that acted against the soldiers, putting their lives at risk, and were not "sins" that were committed against the activists. Hence blaming the commanders for the activists' violence is ridiculous and bears no logical backing.

9 activists dead, Israeli commandos shot and dropped into a situation they weren't informed about

They've done well, that only 9 activists turned out dead is wonderful. Too bad for their lives but they shouldn't have acted the way they did, and frankly I have no much compassion towards those who try to kill soldiers and get killed.

the blockade on Gaza eased because the boarding turned out the wrong action to have taken.

100% false, the blockade on Gaza was eased due to international pressure, which doesn't rely on reality in its basis.

Most people with any military training would see the conclusions that would come. Gunner did and was criticised by you and others for airing his views.

gunner has exposed his lack in professionalism and military knowledge in general when he has blamed the commanders for the violence on board of the ship.
I for one have criticized the way the operation was committed almost instantly, because it was clearly putting the soldiers' lives at risk, however I've also acknowledged that the activists were entirely to blame for the violence and not the commanders, unlike gunner who has blamed the commanders for the violence.
My opinion is the one backed by the Eiland committee, while yours and gunner's is neglected and contradicted. The violence is not to be blamed on the commanders of the soldiers, gunner is wrong in doing so.

In a million years I will never agree your version. Why?

Because you're too narrow minded and offer less than nothing to back your arguments behind pure emotionalism and bad opinions about Israel and the IDF.

Because when an experienced soldier said the same thing in blunt soldier fashion – you attacked him for saying what the Eiland committee would say weeks / months later.

Right now you're playing "pretend", you don't speak about real incidents and real events that have occurred in the past, and you simply manipulate information.
Poster named gunner was attacked for laying the blame for the violence on board of the Mavi Marmara ship on the commanders of the soldiers boarding that ship. That was neglected by the Eiland committee, contrary to your false claims that his words were not neglected and that the Eiland committee has blamed the commanders for the violence - that is absolutely wrong.

You attacked him and now claim to have said the same thing. I don't believe you, no matter how many times “mbig” or “gardener” thank you for it.

This disbelief is merely the result of a tradition of manipulation and lies. You seek to change history and reality in favor of your arguments, I do not do so since I hold the truth to a higher value and a higher standard, and frankly I have no right to mess with the truth. This is why I have nothing but anger to show to you when you seek to manipulate the facts and claim that gunner was reaching the same conclusions as the Eiland committee while he was neglected by it, or that he was "attacked" for saying that the commanders have committed mistakes, and not for saying that the commanders are to be blamed with the violence as he did in reality.

Otherwise, say what you will about your “critique”, you attacked an ex soldier of another country who stated in plain terms what the Eiland committee would say weeks later. You are trying to pretend that you said the same thing weeks ago when your posts clearly state otherwise and your attacks on an ex professional soldier show clearly where your thoughts lay.

I think this above all opens your logic to a review by us, as posters, to see exactly how you think and how you reach the false conclusions that you do.
You have no intention in making an argument, you merely attack me claiming that I have "attacked" another poster who was obviously wrong in his assertions that the commanders were to be blamed with the activists' violence, and deserved to be corrected for them.

Besides that, I see no words yet about the third comment that was written in first-person terms, I wonder why really, care to explain?

 

[Apocalypse]

'Firing warning shots' is a pretty smart move. But shooting them straight in the heads and then calling them warning shots is even smarter.

Warning shots? They were being fired on directly, their lives being put at danger, at this point you aim to neutralize.