Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[funk de fino]

Should have been a Plan B

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181182

 

[funk de fino]

Then explain this post:

You're getting into serious truther territory here, implying things while avoiding making an actual claim.

Would you like to elaborate on the nature of this "huge mistake" the IDF admitted to?

Read the papers and the reports and stop trolling. Even BJM knows that they admitted their mistakes. It seems some can still not admit it

 

[funk de fino]

Trying to backtrack now funk?

Are you still claiming the IDF concluded they should have let the ship sail to Gaza?

No that is you making up lies about what I posted. Just stop it.

That would have been my plan. You really are not too sharp are you?

The IDF admit they should have had another plan. What that was, I do not know.

How utterly sad your last few posts have been. You could cause a fight in a phonebox.

 

[WildCat]

No that is you making up lies about what I posted. Just stop it.

That would have been my plan. You really are not too sharp are you?

The IDF admit they should have had another plan. What that was, I do not know.

How utterly sad your last few posts have been. You could cause a fight in a phonebox.

We know exactly what the IDF says they should have done, which was to go in with far more force than they did.

If you actually read this thread like you claimed to you'd know this, but that wouldn't give you the wiggle room to imply that the IDF thinks they should have just allowed them to sail to Gaza.

 

[funk de fino]

We know exactly what the IDF says they should have done, which was to go in with far more force than they did.

If you actually read this thread like you claimed to you'd know this, but that wouldn't give you the wiggle room to imply that the IDF thinks they should have just allowed them to sail to Gaza.

I never implied anything about what the IDF thinks. I made a comment to BJM about WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE. - OK?

You lied about my posts and made up imaginary claims up for me? Very classy.

They admitted mistakes eh? What I said eh?

Jog on

 

[WildCat]

I never implied anything about what the IDF thinks.

100% pure backpedaling damage control bovine excrement.

Let's recap the actual conversation:

The flotilla organizers, however, would have over the moon if Israel had decided to allow them dock in Gaza, as had happened with other aid boats.

Instead, Israel chose violent, military confrontation.

And that, right there, pretty much sums up the whole moral issue here.

And even the IDF admit it made a huge mistake. The usual deniers here will never admit it though.

Are you still going to deny you weren't implying that that "huge mistake" the IDF admitted to was not allowing the flotilla to sail to Gaza? If it wasn't, why were you responding to bit_pattern and JJ's posts, which was clearly talking about the flotilla being allowed to sail to Gaza?

In fact, you even made that more clear when you said:

Let them dock where they wanted to.

Maybe you need to work on your spin, you can't even fool an uninformed joker from an immature country.

Or maybe you're not as clever as you think you are?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Yet they still boarded and had to kill 9 people.

Let the boat dock, arrest them all, distribute the aid, deport them all. No-one has to be gunned down.

IDF boarded like they did countless times before without incident enforcing a legal naval blockade. Its convenient to exclude the fact that the IDF were attacked as well. The deaths were a direct result of being lemmings and attacking the IDF with lethal force.

 

[Mycroft]

you are lying as usual...please show evidence of backpedaling, its simply the case that you can't comprehend the possibility that people don't support the position you assign to them...so when they actually state their beliefs you think its backpedaling?

That is so funny coming from you. Pot. Kettle.

or is the problem that you don't understand the difference between balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt?

See, your the only one raising the issue of different standards of proof. Nobody else has expressed a similar opinion of what metric of proof they use.

these is insufficient evidence of what happened in the shooting to make any conclusion beyond a personal opinion of probabilities. You....however...want this matter to be concluded by simply accepting the IDFs assurances. You have nothing more. But you don't really need more as you are a guaranteed supporter.

See? Not two paragraphs after haranguing me for assigning a position to you, you assign one to me. Isn't that laughable? Do you do this kind of stuff on purpose because it appeals to your trollish sense of humor, or are you really that...?

I'm convinced (apparently) to the same degree you've backpedaled to; that on "the balance of probability" (I'd phrase it differently) the IDF acted in self-defense. I'm not demanding that the matter be closed (that's the position you hypocritically assigned to me) but neither am I demanding further investigations. I assume any military action involves some degree of debriefing/investigation, and I don't expect that process to come to any different conclusions that what we already have.

 

[Mycroft]

are you kidding?

wow

you convict or acquit based on what happened before the event...

Well, if the video outside the bar showed person A attacking person B, and then moments later inside the bar person A ends up dead and person B says he killed him but it was self-defense, I would say that the video is strong evidence that he really did need to defend himself.

Do you disagree?

 

[Mycroft]

And even the IDF admit it made a huge mistake. The usual deniers here will never admit it though.

The issue is what the mistake was.

The IDF failed in taking the ship peacefully. If I were in charge of that unit I'd fully expect to be in deep trouble for the way it was handled. I think it's reasonable to say that from the moment the "activists" produced flash grenades, that some re-thinking on the tactics involved was in order, but I'm not personally qualified to say what alternatives should have been used.

However, none of the "hate Israel first and always" crowd is raising those issues. Instead they're making laughable charges that the ship was "attacked", that "innocent" people were killed, they make revisionist claims about the legality of the blockade, and even hint at execution-style killings just off camera. That kind of "trutherism" is what's being argued against here.

 

[Mycroft]

Try harder. It was the Israeli who brought guns to an iron bar and knife fight. They could have walked away and now realise they should have.

They brought paint-ball guns.

Do you deny that?

Yes. Let them dock where they wanted to.

Why should they do that?

 

[funk de fino]

100% pure backpedaling damage control bovine excrement.

Let's recap the actual conversation:

Are you still going to deny you weren't implying that that "huge mistake" the IDF admitted to was not allowing the flotilla to sail to Gaza? If it wasn't, why were you responding to bit_pattern and JJ's posts, which was clearly talking about the flotilla being allowed to sail to Gaza?

That's your fevered imagination sunshine. That was what I think they should have done. How many times do I have to tell you that? It is not difficult.

In fact, you even made that more clear when you said:


Maybe you need to work on your spin, you can't even fool an uninformed joker from an immature country.

If you cannot support your lies its a good idea to stop it.

Or maybe you're not as clever as you think you are?

At least I can read and I am not dishonest.

 

[funk de fino]

IDF boarded like they did countless times before without incident enforcing a legal naval blockade. Its convenient to exclude the fact that the IDF were attacked as well. The deaths were a direct result of being lemmings and attacking the IDF with lethal force.

I am not exculding anything. They admit they should not have continued with the action at that time. That was the huge mistake as admitted. The deaths were a combination of idiots attacking the soldiers in addition to the commanders failing to realise the gravity of the situation and putting their men in a idiotic situation. A bit of a CF as we call it.

At least you are not lying about me saying that the IDF said they should have carried out the thing I siuggested they should have done. I'll give you that.

 

[funk de fino]

The issue is what the mistake was.

The IDF failed in taking the ship peacefully. If I were in charge of that unit I'd fully expect to be in deep trouble for the way it was handled. I think it's reasonable to say that from the moment the "activists" produced flash grenades, that some re-thinking on the tactics involved was in order, but I'm not personally qualified to say what alternatives should have been used.

However, none of the "hate Israel first and always" crowd is raising those issues. Instead they're making laughable charges that the ship was "attacked", that "innocent" people were killed, they make revisionist claims about the legality of the blockade, and even hint at execution-style killings just off camera. That kind of "trutherism" is what's being argued against here.

The IDF admit their mistakes themselves. How do you know that no innocent people were killed?

 

[funk de fino]

They brought paint-ball guns.

Do you deny that?

So they flew back onshore to get the real guns then dd they?

Why should they do that?

Plan B. The one they did not have. They could have controlled it easier from there. Anyone who denies this is clueless about military tactics.

It is only my suggestion however. All I know is the IDF said they should have delayed the action.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

And since there was no collective punishment form the blockade, your argument is meaningless. Israel many times offered to help deliver the cargo. There was no issue of getting the supplies to Gaza, the issue was running a blockade. IF the movement was simply concerned with getting supplies there, they would have complied, there would have been no deaths, and Gaza would have gotten the supplies. Israel even offered to have a 3rd party like the UN monitor the entire process.

But they chose to run a blockade instead of delivering supplies. So if anything the Free Gaza movement is in violation here.

The UN stated that the blockade is illegal.

No they didn't. The arab nations of the UN did. And they have no legal basis for such a claim. The blockade is 100% legal by the letter of the law. Show us the law that was violated.

It was a question prompted by your apparent slip of the pen, not a claim. If you have any evidence that I am a racist please present it. Otherwise, shut up.

Slip of the pen?> No. Don't try to get out of it.

Have you followed this story at all or do you rely 100% on intuition to inform youself?

Unlike you, I actually have.

When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Yes? It's a figure of speech. And you ignore the actual explanation given and demonstrated. Talk about cherry picking. To be expected of a truther.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The flotilla organizers accepted that the Israeli military might decide on a confrontation. After all they were challenging Israel's blockade, a blockade that had been declared illegal and a possible crime against humanity. It was evident that it was very important to the occupiers of Gaza that the Palestinians be prevented from eating chocolate and from rebuilding their destroyed homes and infrastructure.

The flotilla organizers, however, would have over the moon if Israel had decided to allow them dock in Gaza, as had happened with other aid boats.

Instead, Israel chose violent, military confrontation.

Thank you for admitting that their goal was not to edliver aid, but to confront a military operation. Of course you're still lying by claiming it was illegal. We know it's not and you have failed to present any laws which are broken by the blockade.

Gaza isn't occupied either. You seem to think that if you keep repeating the same provenly false claims that we might agree with you.

If Israel had let them through the the people on the Flotilla who claimed their goal was to die as Martyrs would have been disappointed. And it would send a signla to the countries who keep trying to smuggle in missiles that they can now try to smuggle those weapons in as they have been caught doing in the past.

jane, can you try to post something other than rhetoric?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am not exculding anything. They admit they should not have continued with the action at that time. That was the huge mistake as admitted. The deaths were a combination of idiots attacking the soldiers in addition to the commanders failing to realise the gravity of the situation and putting their men in a idiotic situation. A bit of a CF as we call it.

At least you are not lying about me saying that the IDF said they should have carried out the thing I siuggested they should have done. I'll give you that.

Would you mind citing the source where the IDF says it should not have continued with the action?

 

[Mycroft]

So they flew back onshore to get the real guns then dd they?

Soldiers always carry guns. When the 82nd Airborne came with tons or relief supplies to earthquake ravaged Haiti, they carried guns as well as food. Being trained and ready for the possibility of needing to use deadly force is part of being a soldier, even if under ideal circumstances they do lots of other stuff instead. I personally would much rather have our soldiers feeding hungry people than shooting people, and I think our soldiers would prefer that too, but the reality is that to be effective and useful, they gotta be capable of using the deadly force too.

Having said that, the Israelis came in with paint-ball guns with the expectation that paint-ball guns would be all that was necessary to take control of the ship. They were wrong, but the reason they were wrong is that the "activists" prepared a much greater degree of violent resistance for them than they were prepared to deal with. The people that orchestrated that tragedy were the people were the people that prepared the metal clubs and knifes and assaulted the Israelis.

Plan B. The one they did not have. They could have controlled it easier from there. Anyone who denies this is clueless about military tactics.

It is only my suggestion however. All I know is the IDF said they should have delayed the action.

Let me ask; do you think the "activists" have any culpability at all? If so, to what degree?

 

[bigjelmapro]

I am not exculding anything. They admit they should not have continued with the action at that time. That was the huge mistake as admitted. The deaths were a combination of idiots attacking the soldiers in addition to the commanders failing to realise the gravity of the situation and putting their men in a idiotic situation. A bit of a CF as we call it.

Well you did exclude it from your assessment above, including the IDF and the deaths of 9 'activists' without providing reasons as to why they were dead.

From the article you linked:
IDF probe: Army didn't have ‘Plan B’

A series of operational and intelligence mistakes led to the botched raid in late May aboard the Mavi Marmara Turkish passenger ship that was trying to break the blockade on the Gaza Strip, according to an internal military probe.
...
In a briefing to reporters, Eiland, a former head of the IDF’s Planning Division and the National Security Council, said that he did not find any negligence in the planning and implementation of the operation. He also made it clear that there was a difference between “operational failures” and “operational mistakes” and that he had only found mistakes, not failures.

“There were mistakes, also on the high military levels, but happily, they were not the result of negligence,” Eiland said.

So operational mistakes, but no, not a CF, since the IDF reacted accordingly to what they faced and weren't acting in a chaotic fashion as is the definition of a CF.

At least you are not lying about me saying that the IDF said they should have carried out the thing I siuggested they should have done. I'll give you that.

Which was what? A suggestion to let them dock and then arrest them once they docked? Since diverting the ships was not an option, as according to the article you provided:

According to Eiland, the navy did not have technology that would have enabled it to stop the ship ahead of the operation without putting soldiers on board its upper deck to take control of the bridge.

“Such an option did not exist,” Eiland concluded in his report.

This would mean that the IDF would have to re-enter Gaza, via the beaches (which are mined partly to prevent such beaching parties), take over a densely defended Gaza port, re-occupy a buffer zone, all in order to arrest activists aboard. And this would lead to less deaths?

If this is not what you intended as a 'suggestion', then perhaps explain this wonderful plan of yours, since what I've been reading from various posts, you are THE most misunderstood poster on this forum, if not the world...