UN report on Gaza Flottila is Released

[Galactus]

There are probably reasonable grounds to critcize the report from (mainly idue to Israeli refusal to comply with the investigation) but you can't really dismiss it purely based on it's source: Are there methodologcal problems? Do they draw conclusions not supported by the evidence?

If the investigation is so obviously wrong it should be easy to bring up where exactly the problems with it are. It's probably reasonable to be suspicious of the report and give it greater scrutiny, but to dismiss it purely based on it's source is just the definition of an ad hominem.

[Yoadm]

There are probably reasonable grounds to critcize the report from (mainly idue to Israeli refusal to comply with the investigation) but you can't really dismiss it purely based on it's source: Are there methodologcal problems? Do they draw conclusions not supported by the evidence?

If the investigation is so obviously wrong it should be easy to bring up where exactly the problems with it are. It's probably reasonable to be suspicious of the report and give it greater scrutiny, but to dismiss it purely based on it's source is just the definition of an ad hominem.

So, for instance, if I discount a claim made by Glenn Beck regarding Liberals, Im applying ad-hominem? Or am I simply discounting someone so utterly biased, that nothing that comes out of his mouth regarding the American left has any credibility in it? I look at the HRC's record and see that there is very little reason to take this report seriousely, and it is best to wait for the actuall UN sanctioned report due in a few months. Guess what? They are doing real work out there, resulting in that report taking far longer time to create.

[Galactus]

So, for instance, if I discount a claim made by Glenn Beck regarding Liberals, Im applying ad-hominem? Or am I simply discounting someone so utterly biased, that nothing that comes out of his mouth regarding the American left has any credibility in it? I look at the HRC's record and see that there is very little reason to take this report seriousely, and it is best to wait for the actuall UN sanctioned report due in a few months. Guess what? They are doing real work out there, resulting in that report taking far longer time to create.

Yes. Glenn Beck tends to make unfounded generalizations or plain make shit up, and it's actually really easy to spot.

As said, I suspect there are problems with this report (it's one-sidedness being the main one, although that's partially Israel's own decision) but yes, dismissing it out of hand is ad hominem: You're attacking the source of the argument rather than the argument itself, without showing in a convincing way how the source tains the argument.

[Yoadm]

Yes. Glenn Beck tends to make unfounded generalizations or plain make shit up, and it's actually really easy to spot.

As said, I suspect there are problems with this report (it's one-sidedness being the main one, although that's partially Israel's own decision) but yes, dismissing it out of hand is ad hominem: You're attacking the source of the argument rather than the argument itself, without showing in a convincing way how the source tains the argument.

Im not attacking the source, Im dismissing it. Similarly, I won't go into detail taking apart glenn becks arguments because his credibility is void. So is the HRC. In addition, since the HRC 'investigation' simply blindly accepted all the accusations presented by the IHH and other activists on board, then scroll back to the original flotilla thread. Their claims were neatly debated there.

[Errant Bard]

Yes. That is exactly what I am telling you. I cannot accurately state just how disgusted, appalled, enraged I would be if that happened.

Not that I agree with Samalander, but wasn't the war in Iraq, and more generally the "war on terror" including the Afghanistan, based on this premise and widely supported in the US after one single terrorist attack that surely was still far from instilling the climate of trapped hopelessness the constant threat of bombing is creating in Israel?

The demonisation France had to go through when it suggested it wouldn't be very right to preemptively strike Iraq, back then, resembles, in my eyes, the reaction we get from some of our Israeli boarders against their critics. And the Iraq blockade wasn't really cleaner than the Gaza blockade.

[Yoadm]

Not that I agree with Samalander, but wasn't the war in Iraq, and more generally the "war on terror" including the Afghanistan, based on this premise and widely supported in the US after one single terrorist attack that surely was still far from instilling the climate of trapped hopelessness the constant threat of bombing is creating in Israel?

The demonisation France had to go through when it suggested it wouldn't be very right to preemptively strike Iraq, back then, resembles, in my eyes, the reaction we get from some of our Israeli boarders against their critics. And the Iraq blockade wasn't really cleaner than the Gaza blockade.

The Iraq blockade was far harsher than the Gaza blockade at its worst. Thing is, the Iraq blockade was enacted against a country that never posed any real threat or had any violent intentions towards the west. Israel's blockade was targetted against a national entity/government actively at war with it, attacking it daily, sworn to its destruction, refusing to even consider peacefull alternatives, while keeping a hundred thousand Israeli's tied with a cord to their bunker. There is a big difference here.

[mormont]

I tend to look into reports that have even an ounce of credibility in them. This report is little different than if the Arab League issued a statement regarding Israel.

Hyperbole, I'm afraid. You have suggested pretty directly that the three judges themselves are partial, on the basis that they were appointed by a body you regard as hostile to Israel. But that doesn't necessarily follow. The judges themselves may still be fair-minded: it is for you to explain why they are not, or why they are so bound by the terms set by the UNHRC that their report is fatally flawed.

That the UNHRC is often hostile to Israel is a fair observation and justifies reasonable scepticism being applied to this report. It does not, in itself, justify completely dismissing the entire report out of hand.

Or, and let's try the third option you didn't consider, IDF intelligence completely messed up with regards to the IHH, its intentions, and the opposition the commando's would face, leading to them boarding unprepared, with boarding plans aimed at dealing with passive activists, right into a riot where their lives were threatened. It is much more plausable that it was one big intelligence fvckup than anything else.

No, I'm afraid I did consider that. But once the resistance was encountered on the first attempt to board, that's as far as the 'poor intelligence' excuse takes you, because at that point, you now have absolutely accurate intelligence about the situation - facts on the ground replace your prior intelligence. So the situation subsequently is exactly as I outlined: attempts from then on must be due to either a shockingly poor risk assessment, a cavalier attitude to the risk that someone will die, a strategic decision that the risk of propaganda defeat overrides all else, or possibly some combination of these. Any or all is a damning indictment of the IDF. If you're right about the poor intelligence, that's an additional cockup. But, we have no evidence on that at present.

[Yoadm]

Hyperbole, I'm afraid. You have suggested pretty directly that the three judges themselves are partial, on the basis that they were appointed by a body you regard as hostile to Israel. But that doesn't necessarily follow. The judges themselves may still be fair-minded: it is for you to explain why they are not, or why they are so bound by the terms set by the UNHRC that their report is fatally flawed.

Im affraid its not a hyperbole but an accurate comparison. And it's hardly me which consideres the organization hostile to Israel. It is internationally regarded as such, and has such a horrendous record of protecting dictatorships and using its power to bash Israel (it is simply the sum of its members), that it is beyond hostile. It hasnt got an ounce of credibility. Now, this organization chose the members of the committee, it created the investigative parameters. Indeed, the reason the HRC's investigation is overshadowed by the UN investigation set to produce its findings in a few months, is that few people consider the HRC sponsored committee to be of any credibility. And the results are obvious: All of the unfounded claims by the IHH and other activists were automatically accepted in the findings.

Oh, and you will have a hard time finding any historical record of an investigation created by a biased group with an agenda, which does not directly corroberate the group's (a nation or an NGO) agenda. They allmost allways do.

That the UNHRC is often hostile to Israel is a fair observation and justifies reasonable scepticism being applied to this report. It does not, in itself, justify completely dismissing the entire report out of hand.

If it were the only investigation going on, I would say we have little choice but to delve into the little details. But considering that an actuall UN report, with representatives from all nations involved, which was meticulously sorted out to be unbiased, is currently working to produce its findings, then I would wait for the relatively impartial report and dismiss the hastily produced HRC report.

No, I'm afraid I did consider that. But once the resistance was encountered on the first attempt to board, that's as far as the 'poor intelligence' excuse takes you, because at that point, you now have absolutely accurate intelligence about the situation - facts on the ground replace your prior intelligence. So the situation subsequently is exactly as I outlined

You are discounting this option too easily. Once the first commando's landed, and were beaten senseless, there was no other option but to continue and push through, due to the fear that they were being kidnapped or killed. The Commando's were trained against light resistance at best (throughing cigaretts at them), they were equipped with paintball guns. It all points to them not expecting this kind of violence, which is precisely what one would term an intelligence fvckup.

: attempts from then on must be due to either a shockingly poor risk assessment, a cavalier attitude to the risk that someone will die, a strategic decision that the risk of propaganda defeat overrides all else, or possibly some combination of these. Any or all is a damning indictment of the IDF. If you're right about the poor intelligence, that's an additional cockup. But, we have no evidence on that at present.

We have all the evidence, from Commando testimonies, to their training, their equipment, and the way they landed. It all points to them not expecting this kind of violence. What we have no evidence on is your claim that they have made a decision to discount human lives. That is a far weaker assertion, imo.

[mormont]

Im affraid its not a hyperbole but an accurate comparison.

Sorry, but you haven't actually justified the comparison. Hyperbole it is, hyperbole it remains, I'm afraid.

If it were the only investigation going on, I would say we have little choice but to delve into the little details. But considering that an actuall UN report, with representatives from all nations involved, which was meticulously sorted out to be unbiased, is currently working to produce its findings, then I would wait for the relatively impartial report and dismiss the hastily produced HRC report.

I agree that it's worth waiting for that report to get a better picture, but this does not address the point that the provenance of the UNHCR report isn't enough for you to dismiss all of its contents out of hand, or to suggest that the three judges were biased.

You are discounting this option too easily. Once the first commando's landed, and were beaten senseless, there was no other option but to continue and push through, due to the fear that they were being kidnapped or killed.

This happened during the later attempt. It's the decision to press ahead with that attempt in the first place that we're discussing. That decision, as I've said, unquestionably showed one or more of the factors I listed above - a shockingly poor judgment of risk, a disregard of risk to life, and/or a strategic choice to put the risk of propaganda defeat above that of risk to life. That's a conclusion one doesn't need to trust the details of the UNHCR report to reach.

[Yoadm]

Sorry, but you haven't actually justified the comparison. Hyperbole it is, hyperbole it remains, I'm afraid.

Claiming that the HRC is as biased as the Arab league with regards to Israel is hardly hyperbolic. Their voting history proves it. If you claim my post is hyperbolic, then please provide countering evidence that they are not similar, since I have provided proof that they are.

I agree that it's worth waiting for that report to get a better picture, but this does not address the point that the provenance of the UNHCR report isn't enough for you to dismiss all of its contents out of hand, or to suggest that the three judges were biased.

Im suggesting that those who chose the judges and dictated their investigative parameters are biased. That, alone, cannot eliminate the very very slim possibility that the findings would be impartial (it would be a first in history), but it makes it far more plausable that the report is highly politicised. Considering that there are more chances than otherwise the report is political, then it can hardly be taken seriousely. The icing on the cake is, ofcourse, the report itself, which proves without a doubt its partiality: All claims, from the most conservative to the relatively wild, of the IHH and other activists, are printed in the report as fact. This pretty much answeres the question of should this report be treated as anything more than garbage.

This happened during the later attempt. It's the decision to press ahead with that attempt in the first place that we're discussing. That decision, as I've said, unquestionably showed one or more of the factors I listed above - a shockingly poor judgment of risk, a disregard of risk to life, and/or a strategic choice to put the risk of propaganda defeat above that of risk to life. That's a conclusion one doesn't need to trust the details of the UNHCR report to reach.

That later attempt happened minuts later, and at that time, no one knew the result of a landing on the boat. At best, you can say that high command chose to put the soldiers themselves at risk to prevent a propaganda 'defeat', since they did not equip them well enough to defend themselves, and prepared them for peacefull protestors. But this all points to a horrible intelligence failor, followed by a rigid operational command which failed to grasp the situation in time and come up with an alternative. Disregard for the passengers lives can be... disregarded. Infact, it seems that the tragedy occured because, initially, too little force was used.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think it was believed deadly force would be necessary, but the troops were issued live ammo. At a minimum, the IDF considered it at least a possibility.

The ultimate question really boils down to whether or not Israel should have abandoned the blockade completely. Because once you say you won't enforce it against anyone who resists violently, it's effectively unenforceable.

Given that Israeli citizens have been killed by Gaza radicals, abandoning the blockade could result in more loss of life than enforcing it.

[mormont]

Claiming that the HRC is as biased as the Arab league with regards to Israel is hardly hyperbolic.

That's not exactly what you did claim, but I'm afraid it is, anyway. We can disagree on this, however. It's a side issue about our rhetoric.

Im suggesting that those who chose the judges and dictated their investigative parameters are biased.

Well, that's a clarification, at least. Now, if you suggest that the choice of the judges was biased, does that not imply that the judges were chosen because of some sort of anti-Israeli bias they possess? If they have no such bias, then there is no effect from their selection, so surely the issue of who chose them is irrelevant?

As for the parameters of the inquiry, I'd agree that these have affected it and this is part of the reason I say some scepticism is appropriate. However, blanket dismissal is not, at least not unless you can explain why those parameters mean that everything in the report is unavoidably and completely compromised by them.

What I'm getting at is that specific criticisms are fine, but this blanket dismissal is silly. It actually damages your argument, making it far too easy to dismiss your criticisms as reflexive and prejudiced. The report, for example, indicates that in some places it is based on physical evidence rather than witness testimony (and contrary to your claims, in several places it seems sceptical of some of the claims made in witness testimony. It's quite diplomatic and polite about it, but you would expect that).

That later attempt happened minuts later and at that time, no one knew the result of a landing on the boat.

I'm not sure about the timescale but if that's true, it is in itself a terrible indictment of the judgment of whoever ordered it. The situation surely called for a more mature consideration of the risks to all involved. So far, you appear to be agreeing with me that this incident showed disastrously poor judgment.

At best, you can say that high command chose to put the soldiers themselves at risk to prevent a propaganda 'defeat', since they did not equip them well enough to defend themselves, and prepared them for peacefull protestors.

The troops were armed with both crowd control weapons and live fire weapons as a backup. Clearly, they were prepared for trouble: it's hard to see how much more prepared they could have been. The situation, I would agree, put the troops at risk inevitably, but that's yet more evidence for this being a crap decision. It certainly isn't proof that sufficient regard was given to the risks to the protesters.

But this all points to a horrible intelligence failor, followed by a rigid operational command which failed to grasp the situation in time and come up with an alternative.

That's what I've been saying, yes.

Disregard for the passengers lives can be... disregarded.

Not by your own arguments above, which rather go to the opposite view, nor by any of my arguments, which you haven't addressed, nor by what actually happened.

The decision to go ahead, as I've said many times now, if it did not show a disregard for the passenger's lives showed a literally incredible level of incompetence. I fail to see how anyone, let alone a military commander, could possibly imagine that rappelling troops armed with live fire weapons*, in the dark, onto a ship full of protesters, some of whom had violently resisted a similar previous attempt, would not result in a situation that could endanger to the lives of those protesters. That beggars belief. And if they did realise that it was likely to result in serious risk to life, but they did it anyway, that shows that they either had higher priorities or insufficient regard for human life.

*yes, in addition to nonlethal weapons.

ETA - I'm reaching the stage where I feel like I'm in danger of taking over the thread, so I'll bow out at that, for now anyway. I think my POV is clear enough.

[Yoadm]

That's not exactly what you did claim, but I'm afraid it is, anyway. We can disagree on this, however. It's a side issue about our rhetoric.

It might be a side issue for you, since it is you who labled my argument hyperbolic. But if you want to move on, why don't you explain why my comparison was hyperbolic. Im really interested to know.

Well, that's a clarification, at least. Now, if you suggest that the choice of the judges was biased, does that not imply that the judges were chosen because of some sort of anti-Israeli bias they possess? If they have no such bias, then there is no effect from their selection, so surely the issue of who chose them is irrelevant?

First of all, it isnt some newfound clarification. It was in my first or second post. I simply repeated the argument. What it suggests is that the choice of judges was the sole responsibility of an extremely biased group with a very clear cut agenda. If a 40s era Alabama court with a consistant record of racism choses its jury, then that Jury is compromised, period.

As for the parameters of the inquiry, I'd agree that these have affected it and this is part of the reason I say some scepticism is appropriate. However, blanket dismissal is not, at least not unless you can explain why those parameters mean that everything in the report is unavoidably and completely compromised by them.

Setting one's parameters dictates one's conclusion. What you investigate, what you do not, who you ask, what questions, etc.. The specific parameters are no available to the public (surprise surprise), but considering that the HRC formulated them, and considering that the verdict of the inquiry was extremely one-sided, ignored a whole lot of evidence and blindly accepted other evidence, then our conclusion is pretty clear-cut.

What I'm getting at is that specific criticisms are fine, but this blanket dismissal is silly. It actually damages your argument, making it far too easy to dismiss your criticisms as reflexive and prejudiced. The report, for example, indicates that in some places it is based on physical evidence rather than witness testimony (and contrary to your claims, in several places it seems sceptical of some of the claims made in witness testimony. It's quite diplomatic and polite about it, but you would expect that).

Criticising an organization which is allready prejudiced is not prejudice. It's stating a fact. You don't go around taking seriousely every wacko with a claim, and just as I dismissed this inquiry, I would dismiss an 'investigative team created by the Israeli Settler Union', or one created by the PA. I will allso dismiss Glenn Becks conclusions and won't bother to delve into his investigation. By the way, you should look at which physical evidence it accepts: It takes cases of wounded or dead victims, and then concludes an execution based on nothing other than the fact that those wounds exist.

I'm not sure about the timescale but if that's true, it is in itself a terrible indictment of the judgment of whoever ordered it. The situation surely called for a more mature consideration of the risks to all involved. So far, you appear to be agreeing with me that this incident showed disastrously poor judgment.

I did not say otherwise, but you seem to be discounting the very plausable explanation of bad intelligence. Evidence clearly points to that. As to alternatives, it seems the only alternative was to abort the boarding, at that specific time. Should it have been done? Who knows, its very easy to speak on hindsight.

The troops were armed with both crowd control weapons and live fire weapons as a backup. Clearly, they were prepared for trouble: it's hard to see how much more prepared they could have been.

How could they have prepared more? Used machine guns instead of paintball guns as their main arm, for instance. They dropped off into the middle of a crowd, weapon tied to their backs, totally vulnrable. There is no other alternative to that they had no clue they would be facing such a mob.

Not by your own arguments above, which rather go to the opposite view, nor by any of my arguments, which you haven't addressed, nor by what actually happened.

My argument above is that they did not know what opposition they were facing, and purposely put the troops at risk by boarding in a way that compromised them, with non-lethal main arnaments which were useless against an armed mob.

The decision to go ahead, as I've said many times now, if it did not show a disregard for the passenger's lives showed a literally incredible level of incompetence. I fail to see how anyone, let alone a military commander, could possibly imagine that rappelling troops armed with live fire weapons*, in the dark, onto a ship full of protesters, some of whom had violently resisted a similar previous attempt, would not result in a situation that could endanger to the lives of those protesters.

Why? Because in all other dozen cases of boarding a flotilla, it worked flawlessly. At the same day, 5 other ships were boarded without incident. They thought it would be the same. They were wrong, and did not expect a violent mob armed with knives, batons, and if you believe the commando's, guns, aspiring to martyrdom. That brings us back to bad intelligence..

ETA - I'm reaching the stage where I feel like I'm in danger of taking over the thread, so I'll bow out at that, for now anyway. I think my POV is clear enough.

Im not sure you are taking over anything. Your point of view is valid (though in my opinion misguided), and contributes to the debate. It is allso not off-topic and deals with the commisions findings.

[Galactus]

First of all, it isnt some newfound clarification. It was in my first or second post. I simply repeated the argument. What it suggests is that the choice of judges was the sole responsibility of an extremely biased group with a very clear cut agenda. If a 40s era Alabama court with a consistant record of racism choses its jury, then that Jury is compromised, period.

No, that's actually not the case. It certainly justifies increased scrutiny, but the arguments still have to actually be disproven.

[Yoadm]

No, that's actually not the case. It certainly justifies increased scrutiny, but the arguments still have to actually be disproven.

So, in your opinion, every silly claim ever uttered by people or organizations, no matter how biased, should never be ignored? Considering that the findings simply echoed the claims of the activists in the past, and those claims were debated at length (and largely disproven) in the actuall flotilla thread, then the recent findings contain nothing new in them. Add to that the lack of a partial commision, then they deserve very little regard. Wait for the real commision findings in a few months.

[Yoadm]

So, let me get this straight.

A. Israel kills a bunch of civilians under incredibly questionable circumstances.

Questionable? Maybe. One sided? Hardly, unless you term fanatical IHH activists itching for martyrdom simple civilians.

B. The UN Security Council condemns the acts that resulted in civilian deaths.

Yes, but it purposely did not condemn any specific party. Which actions are these? The IHH's attempt to kill the boarding parties, or the boarding itself?

C. Ban Ki Moon starts a probe.

Which is not the probe conducted by the HRC, but rather a far more impartial probe. That is why, if you scroll up, you will see I consistantly referred to this probe as one we should wait for, instead of looking at the findings of an extremely biased group with an agenda, called the HRC>

D. Tzipi Livni says that there shouldn't be a probe, because it's Israel's business

Yes. And?

E. A UN body that routinely investigates humanitarian crises, especially Israel's, investigates and condemns the most recent action in a 100% man-made refugee catastrophe that Israel has perpetuated for decades.

That UN body has been proven to not have an ounce of credibility regarding Israel. Read up on the thread if you missed the information posted regarding the subject. Oh, and this refugee catastrophe was perpetuated by those who purposely kept the refugees in concentration camps with barely any rights, simply to use them as political cards, for 60 years. I'll give you a hint: It's not Israel.

F. Therefore, we should ignore the HRC report.

Rubbish. The reason the report should be ignored is the HRC's record and the fact that a far more impartial report will be published in a few months, one that was endorsed by all parties.

H. We should also not examine any facts regarding that report, because it is biased.

I did not say that either. I said that those facts are simple echoes of the activists claims, which were allready debated in the past. Thus, it is irrelevant whether we examine the HRC's fact finding mission just as it is irrelevent to check up on Glenn Becks 'facts'.

Nope. It's a logical fallacy to ignore something because you don't like the person (or organization, in this case).

Im not ignoring it because I 'dont like the organization'. Im disregarding the findings because they don't have an ounce of credibility.

Ad hominem:

Quote

Even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Unfortunately, this does not hold true in the current case. The credibility of the HRC and their consistant Israel-bashing is in every way relevant to how truthfull the commision it sponsored and organized is.

[Samalander]

It's the decision to press ahead with that attempt in the first place that we're discussing. That decision, as I've said, unquestionably showed one or more of the factors I listed above - a shockingly poor judgment of risk, a disregard of risk to life, and/or a strategic choice to put the risk of propaganda defeat above that of risk to life. That's a conclusion one doesn't need to trust the details of the UNHCR report to reach.

Or, it simply shows a dedication to the mission. The army was ordered to enforce the blockade. They couldn't just turn tail and run, abandoning their mission, once things started getting a bit hairy or out of hand. You call it a "propoganda defeat". I would simply call it a defeat. And we are not in a position to allow defeat, or even, the perception of defeat. You call it PR, I call a cornerstone of national deterrence.

If they have no such bias, then there is no effect from their selection, so surely the issue of who chose them is irrelevant?

What I'm getting at is that specific criticisms are fine, but this blanket dismissal is silly.

By their skewed voting practices the UNHCR have declared themselves at odds with the state of Israel. When, in the entire history of the world, has anyone ever agreed to be judged by people who were appointed by their enemies? I also answer: Only the totally vanquished. As we are of yet, unvanquished, they can go suck a lemon.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I did not say otherwise, but you seem to be discounting the very plausable explanation of bad intelligence. Evidence clearly points to that. As to alternatives, it seems the only alternative was to abort the boarding, at that specific time. Should it have been done? Who knows, its very easy to speak on hindsight.

I'm not so sure about the "bad intelligence" argument. Some things may be unknowable in a practical sense. And one of those things may be predicting exactly how the people on that ship would react to an attempted boarding. After all, using clubs and knives against guys armed with guns is not a very smart thing to do, and I don't think "intelligence" is going to be capable of determining whether those people would actually do something that dumb. After all, weren't the Turks and everyone telling people that there were no weapons on the ship?

In any case, I think they came down those ropes with weapons slung not because they knew they were not going to be attacked, but because the alternative of coming down with weapons blazing wasn't acceptable. They essentially had to give the passengers the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't actually assault the troops. But I sincerly doubt that they were completely surprised by the resistance.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You have not produced any counter arguments. You, sir, have committed the oldest logical fallacy in the world.

No, you're misapplying the logical fallacy. That fallacy applies to logical argumentation, and whether the veracity of a logical argument is dependent on the person making it.

But the subject here is not logical fallacies, nor is it the validity of a purely logical argument. This is a question of the reliability of sources regarding facts, not logic. It is an issue of factual credibility, not argumentation based on undisputed factual premises.

[The Progressive]

No, you're misapplying the logical fallacy. That fallacy applies to logical argumentation, and whether the veracity of a logical argument is dependent on the person making it.

But the subject here is not logical fallacies, nor is it the validity of a purely logical argument. This is a question of the reliability of sources regarding facts, not logic. It is an issue of factual credibility, not argumentation based on undisputed factual premises.

I'm afraid that you're missing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well here that is being utlized by Yoadm and Salamander to discredit the credibility of the judges behind the report. I also note that both of them also are trying very hard at avoiding the factual premises of the report, in addition to screaming most loudly about "unfair parameters" without ever addressing what those parameters are and why they're unfair.

It's a quite transparent and pathetic attempt, and that's why nobody is buying it.