You still have failed to address other concerns, but at any rate, I'll try simplifying in order to help you understand. The key issue, it seems, is that you think, despite what I said explicitly multiple times, I'm attempting to prove my conclusions as veritable fact, rather than what can reasonable be inferred from the evidence at hand.
oug wrote:
How is that a mischaracterization? That article was the only one you provided to prove to me that the activists were radicals who intended to become martyrs, and the article in question supposedly proved that through a flimsy glimpse at their past and their religious beliefs.
The article from "the lady who never leaves her office", alleging the connection between Islamic terrorism and IHH, differs from the NPR article on their backgrounds, which is anything but flimsy. I don't understand why you confused the two or why you think the latter article is flimsy - it's quite clear the NPR reporter ascertained legitimate fact about the nine "activists" who died. No one is denying the veracity of that report, either, so it seems fair to conclude we can use the evidence contained therein.
Now I did explain since then that your idea/stereotype of conservative Muslims is inaquate and plain wrong - and I did say that I happened to listen to some of the people of the floatila in person and they were everything but the "martyr" type.
I already explained to you that I recognized not all Muslims are like that, nor were all the people on the flotilla intending to attack Israel's image through forcing a confrontation. However, the Greek people you heard from are not representative of the entire flotilla either, which means you can't conclude from listening to them that none of the flotilla members were intent on confronting Israel, and it is impossible to know whether or not the conservative, radical Muslims who died were of the type willing to martyr themselves for the cause. I'm merely saying, given their background, what happened on the Mavi Marmara, what was found on the Mavi Marmara, the underlying strategic considerations of the incident, and statements made by some other radical Muslims prior to the incident, it seems most likely that there were "activists" on the ship who intended to fight Israel (perhaps with the blessings of the organizers), and believed strongly enough in it to accept the risk of death. That is all. I'm not passing it as absolute fact, just the most reasonable conclusion from what transpired.
That is why I say you lack reading comprehension and exhibit most signs of remaining in high school. You persist in describing my arguments in way incongruous with words I've written explicitly. It's not implicit meaning you are misidentifying, but a consistent description that is contradictory with what has been directly stated in my posts. I don't know if it's intentional or a real limitation on your mental abilities. Admittedly, I've been assuming the latter, but you haven't done anything to change my mind.
Now on this subject you haven't provided a better source as far as I can remember. How could you anyway? There can be no proof of such an accusation even after a formal and unpartial investigation of the incident. Despite all this, you seemed sure of their intentions and you refuse to admit that the portrait you've drawn is based on assumptions and popular myths of your part of the world.
I have, but that's irrelevant. As I wrote above, and you also correctly state, there is no hard proof of the intent by "activists" and flotilla organizers to initiate hostilities with the IDF. However, you again completely misinterpret what I say. At the risk of redundancy, I am not sure of what happened, and never pretended to be. From my very first post, I made it clear that it was just what I had observed from my own rational analysis of what happened, not the result of some magical ability to discern what happened. I really don't understand why you can't comprehend such a simple notion, and insist on failing to properly acknowledge it, but it's been an embarrassingly prevalent fallacy throughout your responses. For the record, what I think is not fact, but simply what makes the most sense to an impartial observer given everything that is known about the situation. I refuse to admit it is based off of assumptions and popular myths, primarily because it is not. There is no assumptions when dealing with the probability of the outcome, unless I am assuming something which is entirely untrue, something I've ensured I did not. The assumptions came if I try to say that I know for sure that x happened, and x is based on me assuming that the radical Muslims were terrorists, and that IHH is linked with Hamas. Since I am only concluding a reasonable inference based on what is most likely the case, I am "assuming" the most likely options were true (i.e that IHH is linked to Hamas, the radicals were willing to fight against Israel, and so on). However, but this isn't a real assumption, but an observation of the odds.
There is a chance that the flotilla was entirely intent on helping the innocent civilians of Gaza without interfering in the war between Israel and Hamas, but given what I do know, it seems much more reasonable to conclude they weren't. Does this make any sense to you?
Edit: Since I'm nice, though:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d … d-1.295591Regarding the pictures, your justification of their veracity was that there was also a video of the masks vests etc, an argument I already addressed.
See, this is a perfect example of your apparent lack of reading ability. I offered more than the statement regarding the video evidence, and you directly state yourself I didn't. You shouldn't be responding if you can't properly understand what is written in opposing arguments.
As for the "there was no vocal denial" part, I really don't know what to say. First off I don't read the news so much these days so I wouldn't know if there were any voices of denial, and I'm sure neither would you, because you know how to pick your news sources well...
Considering the story about the weapons was major news, you think a denial of their existence and obligatory doubting of the veracity of such reports would be equally big news. Rather, the Turkish government, IHH, and Free Gaza Movement continued to spew repetitive and generic anti-Israeli rhetoric entirely unrelated to the findings. I don't handpick news sources; it's kind of pathetic to assert that when its clear you hate anything contradicting your miserable hatred of Israel.
But aside from that, I really don't understand the logic here. On the one hand you suppose that a lack of resistance indicates the validity of something, and on the other whenever people protest you criticize them for it.
The logic isn't dependent on any hypocrisy I might have, and by itself is rather strong. People are much more inclined to directly deny something if its not true, and the fact such reports haven't been denied seems to indicate they are legitimate. Turkish officials denied Israeli claims prior to the release of the photos, but I haven't been able to find any originating afterward. Perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong?
Regarding the final clause, how do you figure I criticize people for protesting. An example would help the assertion move beyond the realm of 'baseless personal attack' into 'legitimate observation of hypocrisy', and would be much appreciated.
Instead of using inverse logic, I urge you to rethink all those things that were supposedly found on the ships. How much of that was actually there, how much was planted? What difference does it make etc etc.
Again, I doubt Israel planted it because it would be vocally and repeatedly denied, something that hasn't happened. It makes a major difference, obviously.
With that said, your words really make no sense. I did reconsider, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. I haven't seen anything new that would make me change my mind.
And as a side note. First you want me to address your points and then you call me a school boy and you laugh at my "delusional statements". I understand that your insults are a direct effect of your lack of valid arguments, but paired with your endless repetition, they make a good reason why I should just ignore you.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but it's extremely aggravating to write things and then see them consistently mischaracterized in a manner not conducive to balanced debate. I've repeated myself many times, primarily because you don't seem to understand what I write when I do so the first time. Its tiring to repeatedly defend myself against such egregious inaccuracies, but I've been hoping that you'll eventually understand them if they are reiterated frequently and simply enough. The insults aren't a result of a lack of valid arguments, as much as you want to grasp at that, but rather a reflection of my irritation at your obduracy and apparent inability to read what I write.
