You tried this last time I posted the links from the BBC. Didn't wash then, doesn't wash now.
Yes I believe I've already explained it to you that taking the activists words for granted is wrong, nevertheless since you were, a few posts ago, making the claim that there were reports on violence on board the other ships and tried to use it in favor of your argument, I am inclined to remind you that right now there was no violence on board the other ship, and unless it's proven otherwise we cannot presume that there was.
There are no grounds to presume there was no violence on the ship
We can't presume a negative, we're simply not presuming the positive.
The anti-Israeli propagandists claim they were attacked by soldiers on board of the other ship, there was no information regarding anyone from those ships being treated in an hospital, like the ones on board the Mavi Marmara who have attacked the soldiers were, and hence there is no room to presume that violence has occurred on board of any ship that was not the Mavi Marmara.
as I've shown it has happened elsewhere with other flotillas.
You have obviously failed to prove that it has happened elsewhere and simply claiming that you have shown so does not equal to actually showing so.
You have linked to the ship from 2009 that was hammered by the IDF, yet there were no reports on attacks on the activists themselves, and even if we take the words of the activists that the soldiers were shooting, clearly those were warning shots as they didn't hit anyone at all, so basically no one was hit even if we take the activists who were on board of that ship in 2009 on their words, which leaves no room for doubt that what you were claiming was false.
Nevertheless, the point is proven, but where is the denial in YNET that the activists were not mistreated or that the Al Jazeera reporter was wrong?
The IDF doesn't tend to take those activists seriously as it has a rich past with such incidents and knows full too well that they have no problem to tell a lie. Besides that, the 2009 ship did not cause an international incident, and there was no need for the IDF to explain itself.
That's a different point, there is a blockade against food and other supplies that affects the ordinary Gazans and others felt a basic humanitarian need to meet that need. Israel allowed the first flotillas in and stopped 8 others. Where there have been terrorists in boats or people trying to bring in weapons, they stopped them. They could simply have continued to let aid supplies through and instead decided to escalate the actions which led to May's incident which eventually led to the easing of the blockade.
You're advocating the automatically allowance of ships to enter the Gaza port without investigating their cargos first, which means that you have no interest in Israel's security needs.
Besides that, the economic blockade that was lifted has only banned non-necessities.
I have not advocated allowing rockets or weapons supplies (which tend to go through the Gaza tunnels anyway)
They do not go through the tunnels at the same magnitudes that they would go through the crossings were they allowed to, so far is clear.
but I do advocate letting aid (food and medical supplies) through.
Food and medical aid was being let through, some food and some forms of medical aid were restricted.
No problem on that front from me, any nation has that right if threatened however with aid ships that right became escalated into the events on the mavi marmaris.
Yes but that was entirely the fault of the activists.
You cannot blame Israel for having activists attack its soldiers, this could happen anywhere really not necessarily on an aid ship.
I personally think Israel's stopping aid flotillas rather than inspecting and letting through was the wrong course of action.
Israel was intending on inspecting the aid flotillas and letting the goods through, that was the plan all along and it seems like you follow Israel's thought line, where you are in disagreement is with the activists who have refused to be inspected.
Each genuine flotilla always let Israel know what was happening and had the cargo inspected.
Israel can only count on its own eyes and has the right to count on its eyes alone as a sovereign nation.
Better still to have let the UN take appropriate aid in and then there would have been no need for the flotillas.
Yes that's what happening now but it's not like the situation in Gaza has changed so much, since there was no real difference.
The items that have been restricted by Israel have mostly came through the tunnels anyway, and the ordinary Gazan can only thank for the better quality of those items, since they now come from Israel and not from Egypt through smuggling.
Gaza is still a third world territory and a lot of people in the world seem to think that as long as the Gaza Strip is not a first world territory it means they live in humanitarian crisis. They do not, there are places who actually live in humanitarian crisis like in Darfur, Gaza is not one of those places, it's a third world territory like Yemen.
Outright falsehood. He continuously stated that the commanding chain put those commandos into that position – not that anyone else caused the violence. I read all his posts on the original flotilla thread.
Gunner still deserves the apology.
I fear you deliberately lie at this point.
Here's his post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...d-attack-against-idf-raid.html#post1058800404
As you can see we were arguing about who is to blame for the violence.
I told him that it is not rational to blame the soldiers for being attacked, since it was the activists who have clearly incited the violence.
He said "I don't blame the soldiers, I blame their commanders".
If gunner would have deserved an apology, then by all means, he'd get it from me with a bouquet of flowers.
However he does not, and right now I deserve an apology from you.
Gunner was clear in his posts; that's just one.
I didn't read in any of the posts you posted in that thread or the flotilla thread anything that looked anything similar. Gunner was always clear – both in the flotilla thread and then the thread regarding banning the IHH in Europe.
Again, I've referred you to the post where gunner was laying the blame on the soldiers' commanders. (And no, "soldiers' commanders" means the commanders of the soldiers, that's what the ' means when you put it after the letter S, not the soldiers + the commanders as gunner thought.)
I participated in (guessing) 3 to 5 Israel threads (including this one) – I don't have time to read all the threads in the whole forum. 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.
Well frankly that's a lie, since in one of the many comments where I've criticized the taken actions I was actually responding to you.
Look at this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...za-flotilla-says-hamas-96.html#post1058783326
Now here are two more posts where I'm saying that things should have been handled differently:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...za-flotilla-says-hamas-63.html#post1058781425
And:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-flotilla-says-hamas-129.html#post1058789695
I accept your apology.