Stratfor - Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

Infinite Chaos · Jul 15, 2010

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

And I said your third post was the nearest to actually appearing like a critique – but it's still undermined by attacking another poster for saying more clearly that the decision-making was wrong.

Twist as much as you like, you only convince the zealots.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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

So why attack him? He clarified his position times on both threads. “I have maintained throughout, no blame rests with the soldiers on the ground. The 'blame' should be placed with the politicians/commanders who executed an avoidable shambolic mission.”

That's pretty clear to most people. He doesn't blame the grunts.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

You posted a link – and then misread it. You apply your own interpretation and then try to say gunner has blamed the commandos for the violence. He asked you umpteen times before Tashah intervened as moderator in the IHH thread to copy and paste his blaming “the commandos for the violence”

No such reply ever came – but you have the gall to come here and lie repeatedly.

Apocalypse said:
--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.

I have no interest in your military service, especially if you are low enough to insult another soldier's service - just in getting some honesty from you. You accused gunner repeatedly but when he asks you to post his own words, you never do.

Why is that?

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

Neither gunner nor I are interested in who caused the violence. It's clear who is (the activists) – now get to the crux – who is to blame for putting the commandos into that position? You keep asking and falsely accusing him of blaming the commandos for starting the violence and it's only you and your fellow fanatics who think you have something to prove when the discussion is completely elsewhere.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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

Post his words then and prove your argument. However, your record against me so far is zero.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

Show me where he says otherwise.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

OK, you say you are translating from Hebrew into English. Do you understand the difefrence between “I” and “They”? Do you understand the difference between “put the commandos into a position” and “the commandos caused the violence?”

If you don't – get someone to translate because neither Gunner nor I have said the commandos caused the violence.

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

And the international pressure has nothing to do with the deaths or the flotilla. Yeah right...

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

Most people tread lightly before insulting someone else's military experience. Most people try to educate themselves in a language they are trying to debate in. I expect nothing honourable from you anymore.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

You have friends who can translate what I have asked you to understand. Tonight I have seen a poster reach the lowest form of the gutter – insulting another person's military service. I fully expect to see you thanked for this.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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.

We've reached the “reductio ad anti-semitism” moment haven't we. First you insult a professional soldier and now we're at the “anti Israel” moment.

Well done. How honourable of you. I want no apology from someone who insults another poster's military service.

Apocalypse said:
-- 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?

Get yourself a new pair of glasses. I already commented about this a few pages ago.

Apocalypse · Jul 15, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
And I said your third post was the nearest to actually appearing like a critique – but it's still undermined by attacking another poster for saying more clearly that the decision-making was wrong.

Twist as much as you like, you only convince the zealots.

You're the only zealot I see here, and you are the one who's doing the twisting of the words.
I'm going to say this once and I'm going to make it as sound and as clear as possible:
Poster gunner was making the assertion that the commanders of the soldiers were responsible for the violence on board the Mavi Marmara ship on the 31st of May 2010.
This assertion is a torn-off and obviously false assertion, the activists are the ones who have incited the violence and gunner's words are neglected by reality, and by the Eiland committee as well.
I have then sought to oppose him on these words and have done so.

So why attack him? He clarified his position times on both threads. “I have maintained throughout, no blame rests with the soldiers on the ground. The 'blame' should be placed with the politicians/commanders who executed an avoidable shambolic mission.”

I have corrected the words (or, "attacked" in your dictionary) of poster gunner due to this part: "The blame should be placed with the politicians/commanders who executed an avoidable shambolic mission".

As you can see gunner's criticism of the operation here is that it was "avoidable" in his eyes. That's not the same criticism of the Eiland committee, which states the mistakes were that intelligence has failed to find about the activists' violent intentions and the navy has failed to prepare and the soldiers accordingly and get them safely onto the ship.

Besides that, and that is the main issue here, by saying that "The blame(for the violence) should be placed with the politicians/commanders" who executed this operation, he is making a false statement, alleging that the commanders and politicians are to be blamed with the violence on board the ship while the blame actually lies on the activists' hands.

That's pretty clear to most people. He doesn't blame the grunts.

Yes, he blames the commanders. I've been saying this for the past hours, and that is what I am opposing here. It sounded pretty clear to me.

You posted a link – and then misread it. You apply your own interpretation and then try to say gunner has blamed the commandos for the violence. He asked you umpteen times before Tashah intervened as moderator in the IHH thread to copy and paste his blaming “the commandos for the violence”

No such reply ever came – but you have the gall to come here and lie repeatedly.

Even more lies.
Here's his comment:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...d-attack-against-idf-raid.html#post1058800404

gunner said:
I have maintained throughout, no blame rests with the soldiers on the ground. The 'blame' should be placed with the politicians/commanders who executed an avoidable shambolic mission.

Paul

He is blaming the commanders and the politicians here, no interpretation can hide that fact, and this is crystal clear.
Since that is so, the only conclusion is that you've just lied again, intentionally.

I have no interest in your military service, especially if you are low enough to insult another soldier's service

Good, because I have no interest in yours and gunner's either, so don't push yours I won't push mine.
Besides that I don't remember insulting his service, I'm sure his country honors his service to it and I do not doubt that he did his job as expected from him, I was saying that he has made an unproffesinal statement, which is completely legitimate considering that he has indeed made an unprofessional statement.

Neither gunner nor I are interested in who caused the violence. It's clear who is (the activists)

Gunner was making the statement that the commanders are to be blamed for the violence, and so did you when you've stated that:
"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."

Basically it's the millionth time or so that you are being caught on a lie in this thread, and you have no interest to stop now.

Post his words then and prove your argument. However, your record against me so far is zero.

I've posted them three times so far, also above, and you've posted them too, but here they are:

gunner said:
I have maintained throughout, no blame rests with the soldiers on the ground. The 'blame' should be placed with the politicians/commanders who executed an avoidable shambolic mission.

Paul

My "record against you" keeps beeping and the toll's increasing.

And the international pressure has nothing to do with the deaths or the flotilla. Yeah right...

It has to do with international known double standards and hypocrisy, nothing more and nothing less, and certainly not "the truth" since the truth is that the activists have incited violence and have seen its consequences.

Most people tread lightly before insulting someone else's military experience. Most people try to educate themselves in a language they are trying to debate in. I expect nothing honourable from you anymore.

Honorable is not a word that was meant to be used by a liar, not by he who intends to hide and/or manipulate the truth from bad intentions.
In fact pretty much the majority of the statements you've given in this thread were clear and obvious lies, deliberate promotion of that which is false, including the statement that by calling gunner's claim that the commanders are to be blamed with the violence on board of the ship unprofessional (and they are) I was somehow "insulting his service", or that by stating that "the blame lies on the politicians and commanders" gunner wasn't stating that the blame lies on the politicians and commanders.
Those lies have destroyed your credibility, that is, if you've ever had one.

Infinite Chaos · Jul 16, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Yes, he blames the commanders. I've been saying this for the past hours, and that is what I am opposing here. It sounded pretty clear to me.

I have to admit your propensity to lie repeatedly amazes me.

Why have you suddenly stopped asking about “who caused the violence”

Apocalypse said:

-- “He is blaming the commanders and the politicians here, no interpretation can hide that fact, and this is crystal clear.

Since that is so, the only conclusion is that you've just lied again, intentionally.”

Click to expand...

There we go again. For the past three pages and al the other threads you seem to have trolled him on, you ask about “who causes the violence” - now you've been caught out, you suddenly drop it.

He is blaming the commanders and politicians for what? You've suddenly dropped the lie where you tried to prove he blamed the soldiers for starting the violence. I admire how seamlessly you move from one lie to another, completely without shame.

Apocalypse said:

-- Honorable is not a word that was meant to be used by a liar, not by he who intends to hide and/or manipulate the truth from bad intentions.
In fact pretty much the majority of the statements you've given in this thread were clear and obvious lies, deliberate promotion of that which is false, including the statement that by calling gunner's claim that the commanders are to be blamed with the violence on board of the ship unprofessional (and they are) I was somehow "insulting his service", or that by stating that "the blame lies on the politicians and commanders" gunner wasn't stating that the blame lies on the politicians and commanders.
Those lies have destroyed your credibility, that is, if you've ever had one.

Click to expand...

You failed to prove your criticism of the operation and instead prove that you have a failure of translation.
You generalise when it suits you but on another thread attack another poster for “hatespeech” when she generalises.
You try to pass off that generalisation as a first person plural – falsely claiming you were speaking for yourself as well as other Israelis in the posts you tried to pass off as evidence.
You insult another poster's military service.
You fail to prove anyone blamed the soldiers for starting the violence.
You repeatedly accuse me of lying – your own words and failure to translate properly what you read lead you to serious accusations against other posters.
You shamelessly switch from one lie to another – dropping false accusations that you trolled another poster around various threads for.

Great record and well done all who thanked you in this thread, you identify yourselves too.

Apocalypse · Jul 16, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
I have to admit your propensity to lie repeatedly amazes me.

Why have you suddenly stopped asking about “who caused the violence”

There we go again. For the past three pages and al the other threads you seem to have trolled him on, you ask about “who causes the violence” - now you've been caught out, you suddenly drop it.

He is blaming the commanders and politicians for what? You've suddenly dropped the lie where you tried to prove he blamed the soldiers for starting the violence. I admire how seamlessly you move from one lie to another, completely without shame.

Who drops what?
I haven't forsaken the truth, I was saying that he was blaming the commanders and by that I was obviously referring to the violence on board of the ship.
He is blaming the commanders for the violence on board the ship, that is the truth, that is reality, that was his reply to "do you blame the activists for the violence?", it was "I blame the commanders and the politicians".

You failed to prove your criticism of the operation and instead prove that you have a failure of translation.

That's bull, I've proven it with three different posts, and you've referred to "third person" at two of them in a failed attempts to resist reality and deny the truth, but it was stronger than you.

You generalise when it suits you but on another thread attack another poster for “hatespeech” when she generalises.

I know of the public opinion in my country, and I'm going to state it when I wish to.

You try to pass off that generalisation as a first person plural – falsely claiming you were speaking for yourself as well as other Israelis in the posts you tried to pass off as evidence.

Once more, that all "third person" bull is extremely retarded, it's an argument expected to be heard from a three years old, not from a mature adult. And besides that, again, the third post was completely in first-person and was speaking about the failures cited by the Eiland committee.

You insult another poster's military service.

That's a lie, cite where I have done such a thing.

You fail to prove anyone blamed the soldiers for starting the violence.

Once more, that's a lie, I've proven it already more than a dozen times, you've ignored them all but they've remained real and strong in their truth.

You repeatedly accuse me of lying – your own words and failure to translate properly what you read lead you to serious accusations against other posters.

That's because the majority of your statements here, as you can see above, are lies.
You've just said that I've "insulted another person's military service" - so cite where I've done such a thing, so we could all see.
Unless you're being a coward and are afraid of the truth.

You shamelessly switch from one lie to another – dropping false accusations that you trolled another poster around various threads for.

I haven't dropped anything even for a second, the truth is backing me up here and it's interested in exposing your lies.

Great record and well done all who thanked you in this thread, you identify yourselves too.

This thread was your downfall, the end of your credibility, the exposure of your lies.

Infinite Chaos · Jul 17, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Who drops what?
I haven't forsaken the truth, I was saying that he was blaming the commanders and by that I was obviously referring to the violence on board of the ship.
He is blaming the commanders for the violence on board the ship, that is the truth, that is reality, that was his reply to "do you blame the activists for the violence?", it was "I blame the commanders and the politicians".

That's bull, I've proven it with three different posts, and you've referred to "third person" at two of them in a failed attempts to resist reality and deny the truth, but it was stronger than you.

I know of the public opinion in my country, and I'm going to state it when I wish to.

Once more, that all "third person" bull is extremely retarded, it's an argument expected to be heard from a three years old, not from a mature adult. And besides that, again, the third post was completely in first-person and was speaking about the failures cited by the Eiland committee.

That's a lie, cite where I have done such a thing.

Once more, that's a lie, I've proven it already more than a dozen times, you've ignored them all but they've remained real and strong in their truth.

That's because the majority of your statements here, as you can see above, are lies.
You've just said that I've "insulted another person's military service" - so cite where I've done such a thing, so we could all see.
Unless you're being a coward and are afraid of the truth.

I haven't dropped anything even for a second, the truth is backing me up here and it's interested in exposing your lies.

This thread was your downfall, the end of your credibility, the exposure of your lies.

You simply don't have the English language skills to understand where you are wrong. That has been demonstrated through this thread and what worries me is the reference you made in an earlier post about arguing / exposing / defeating others.
I have no idea how many other posters you've trolled around different threads asking for something you've translated badly.

Apocalypse · Jul 17, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
You simply don't have the English language skills to understand where you are wrong. That has been demonstrated through this thread and what worries me is the reference you made in an earlier post about arguing / exposing / defeating others.
I have no idea how many other posters you've trolled around different threads asking for something you've translated badly.

Infinite Chaos,

1) You have accused me with "insulting another poster's service". You were asked to cite where did this happen and you've so far failed to comply.
I will ask you again to cite the source of that accusation.

2) Your attempt at an argument - accusing my sourcing of posts where I have aligned myself with the Eiland committee and its conclusions of "bad English", and attempting to create a false reality where those posts were not expressive of my own opinion but of other people's opinions who I disagree with - has completely ignored the third post, which was written using first-person terms. Now I am not legitimizing your 100% dependent on the fact that the two other posts were not written in first-person terms, as if your claim that a person cannot make his position clear without using first-person terms has any sense in it, but even if we are to work by that obviously unacceptable standard, my third post is completely acceptable and is a proof that I have aligned myself with the Eiland committee and its conclusions, contrary to your initial accusation.

3) You have claimed in your previous post that gunner has not made the statement that the commanders and politicians are to be blamed with the violence, however you yourself were quoting a post where he was making those accusations, responding to the question "do you believe the activists are to be blamed with the violence" with his statement that the commanders are to be blamed with it. You have still failed to base your claim that he has not referred to the violence with the word "blame", and frankly that would be impossible considering he has responded to the question of who he blames for the violence with the statement that the commanders are to be blamed.

4) You have stated in post #101 that (suddenly) your belief is that the activists are to be blamed with the violence, however in a previous post you were stating the following:
"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."
You've yet to give a sufficing explanation to this statement and how is it not contradicting and is contradicted by your statement in post #101.

Basically your posts seem to have a pattern in them, you believe that you're posting in front of a crowd and you honestly believe that you're changing something when you're making up lies to protect your damaged positions.
I believe that is one of the definitions of trolling, but nevertheless I will keep bringing the above points up until you will supply me with sufficient answers to them, not before it, since by now you've made it a personal interest of mine to pursue the truth behind this thread until the last confession comes from you that you were indeed lying all throughout the thread and that you admit to being wrong about your initial claim that I have not aligned myself with the Eiland committee, even though I clearly did.

Agent Ferris · Jul 17, 2010

marywollstonecraft said:
so - did the "peaceful protesters" board the ship - or did the IDF? what about the reports of blocking communication?

who did that?

be interesting to see what comes out.

at this point it is not looking good for the IDF.

The Israelis were conducting a legal search of a terrorist owned and operated vessel attempting to run a legal blockade which is a cut and dry act of war. The only question that needs to be asked is who initiated the use of deadly force and it is abundantly clear that it was the jihadist flotilla crew.

Agent Ferris · Jul 17, 2010

kaya'08 said:
Guess the IHH weren't the only extremists on that boat that day.

Obviously the intention of the aid flotilla was to raise political awareness, and the IDF only helped there efforts. So who is to blame?
Its becoming increasingly probable to me that the IHH has in fact no ties to the global jihad and this is yet another IDF "statement" with no relevance or sources to back it up.
In any case, regardless of the IHH's ties, they are not themselves terrorists and should not be treated as such by the many misleading posters on this thread.

Anyone who knowingly aids terrorists should be considered terrorists themselves. Regardless some of the crew are on record in the Turkish press as wishing to become shahid.

Agent Ferris · Jul 17, 2010

kaya'08 said:
Its becoming increasingly probable to me that the IHH has in fact no ties to the global jihad and this is yet another IDF "statement" with no relevance or sources to back it up.

Actually there is their is tons of documented evidence:

Danish Research Institute Exposes Past IHH Links with Al-Qaeda

14. In 2006 a Danish research institute called the Danish Institute for International Studies conducted a study which reported that in the past IHH had connections with Al-Qaeda and global jihad operatives.5 The well-documented study was conducted by Evan Kohlman,6 an American researcher who specializes in Al-Qaeda and related subjects. It deals with the involvement of Islamic charity funds and foundations in supporting terrorism. Pages 10-14 relate to IHH.

Title page of the Danish Institute’s study.

15. According to the study, the Turkish authorities began investigating IHH at least in December 1997, after having received information that senior IHH figures had purchased automatic weapons from radical Islamic organizations. The office of the organization in Istanbul was consequently raided and activists were arrested. During the raid the Turkish security forces found weapons, explosives, instructions for making IEDs and a flag with a jihad message. An examination of the documents found in IHH office indicated that IHH members were planning to take part in jihad activities in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.

16. The study quotes a French intelligence report stating that in the mid-1990s IHH leader, Bülent Yildirim, was directly involved in recruiting “veteran soldiers” to organize jihad activities. According to the French report, a number of operatives were sent by IHH into war zones in Islamic countries to gain combat experience. The report also stated that IHH transferred money, “caches of firearms, knives and pre-fabricated explosives” to Muslim fighters in those countries.

Passage from the study quoting a French intelligence report. It deals with the
involvement of IHH and its leader in global jihad activities during the 1990s.

17. The study also states that an examination of IHH’s telephone records in 1996 showed repeated calls in 1996 to an Al-Qaeda guest house in Milan and to Algerian terrorists operating in Europe (one of whom was notorious Al-Qaeda figure Abu Ma’ali [Abd al-Qadr Mukhtari], who operated in Bosnia). IHH’s name was also mentioned during the trial of Ahmed Ressam held in the United States in 2000 (Ressam was a senior Al-Qaeda operative active in Canada, who at the end of 1999 entered the United States in a car carrying 600 kilograms (1320 pounds) of explosives. He planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.) The United States federal prosecutors called Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate in charge of terrorism affairs, as an expert witness. He testified that IHH had played an important role in Al-Qaeda’s planned attack. According to Bruguière, IHH served as a cover for Al-Qaeda and acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and transferred weapons.

Passage from the study dealing with IHH cover for the global jihad.

18. According to the study, following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bülent Yildirim and IHH played a key role in anti-Western incitement among Turkish Muslims. At the end of 2000 IHH organized protests against the attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein, during which Israeli and American flags were burned. In December 2004 IHH organized an anti-American march in Istanbul. During the march Bülent Yildirim told the Turkish Anatolia News Agency that the intelligence cooperation between the United States, Britain and Turkey had to stop, otherwise IHH would organize actions in front of every consulate, and if necessary organize 50,000 or 100,000 people in front of the American consulate. At a demonstration held in December 2004, anti-American slogans were shouted, including “Murderer sent by the murderous United States, get out of the Middle East,” and “Long live the resistance.”

Passage from the study dealing with IHH’s anti-American activities in Iraq.

IHH - a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation.

Tashah · Jul 17, 2010

Moderator's Warning:

This thread has no apparent utility now except as an incubator for constant sniping.

Stratfor - Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

Infinite Chaos

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Infinite Chaos

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Infinite Chaos

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Tashah

Stratfor - Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency