How reliable is this guy?

[NWO Sentryman]

I was watching a few vids by this guy (http://www.youtube.com/user/representativepress)

Is he reliable?

[thought_fugitive]

Are you at all capable of forming your own opinions?

[Tolls]

It's a you tube vid.
Do I really need to say anymore?

[Marduk]

has israel committed war crimes
YES
has every other armed force on earth committed war crimes
YES
I don't think the guys as unreliable as the people watching it. Its easily anti semitic because hes only focusing on Israel, Americans have committed war crimes in the recent conflict, as the guy says but with a twist
if americans knew that americans were committing war crimes would they support it
YES

Terrorist groups are the only ones who don't commit war crimes, not because they havent but because semantics calls it terrorism
its not nations that commit war crimes, its humans, take the humans out of the loop and the crime will end, but dont hold your breath on that

wiki has a comprehensive list of war crimes going back to 1914
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
;)

[CatOfGrey]

I would not consider his information reliable. In a very quick review, I notice the following fallacies:

1) As suggested above, the author is guilty of confirmation bias. The author's pro-Arab stance neglects information by emphasizing US and Israel atrocities while neglecting to mention that Hamas and Hezbollah are by definition fighting an illegal war against Israel.

2) There seems to be more emphasis on "Lies" rather than presenting contrary evidence. This indicates to me a fallacy of a 'straw man', where you attack a person rather than their statements. It also makes one susceptible to the fallacy of the 'unprovable statement'. An argument cannot be considered logical if one declares that any contradictory evidence is a lie.

[LibraryLady]

I have moved this thread to where I think it will get better attention.

[Klimax]

...
2) There seems to be more emphasis on "Lies" rather than presenting contrary evidence. This indicates to me a fallacy of a 'straw man', where you attack a person rather than their statements. It also makes one susceptible to the fallacy of the 'unprovable statement'. An argument cannot be considered logical if one declares that any contradictory evidence is a lie.

I think that one would be ad hominem not strawman as that one is "argument against position oponent didn't make/take."

[CatOfGrey]

I think that one would be ad hominem not strawman as that one is "argument against position oponent didn't make/take."

I'd agree with this. The fallacy is that calling someone a liar is insufficient to disprove their point.

[Careyp74]

I think that one would be ad hominem not strawman as that one is "argument against position oponent didn't make/take."

the other parts of a Strawman argument is that it is a weak argument that is built up and knocked down, and that it has to do with the topic at hand. Some times a person is confused about what someone is arguing, and starts to argue something else, this isn't a Strawman fallacy.

[Klimax]

the other parts of a Strawman argument is that it is a weak argument that is built up and knocked down, and that it has to do with the topic at hand. Some times a person is confused about what someone is arguing, and starts to argue something else, this isn't a Strawman fallacy.

I think so. And confusion can be seen sometimes on this board quite easly...