Israel to investigate claims officer used boy to shield vehicle

[Outcast]

Originally posted by demon
The IDF using kids to shield their vehicles?

This photo also appeared in the Daily Mail today. It reports that the photo was released by Rabbis for Human Rights.
The story was also covered by the Sydney Morning Herald.

quote:
Israel to investigate claims officer used boy to shield vehicle
By Ed O'Loughlin
April 24, 2004

Jersualem: The Israeli authorities are investigating allegations a paramilitary border officer tied a 12-year-old Palestinian boy to the bonnet of his four-wheel drive to protect it against stone-throwing protesters.

A picture of boy tied to a vehicle was taken last week by an Italian journalist from the Alternative Information Centre and released on the internet.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, leader of an Israeli group called Rabbis for Human Rights, claims he saw the incident, and said that when he attempted to intervene he was beaten and arrested.

He said the child, Mohammed Badwan, was tied to the police car's windshield by one arm and was shivering with cold or fear.

The alleged incident occurred on April 15, when protesters were attempting to prevent Israeli contractors from building a controversial separation barrier through the lands of the Palestinian village of Biddu.

Five Palestinians have died during protests at Biddu, including four stone-throwers who were shot dead and an elderly man who had a heart attack after being tear-gassed. Israel says the barrier is needed to prevent terrorism.

Rabbi Ascherman said he had gone to intervene on the child's behalf after villagers told him they had seen the border officers beating him.

He said that after the officers arrested him he was forced to stand in front of another police car for more than two hours. "They repeatedly replied with orders to shut up, or verbal threats of violence, or derision," he said.

A spokesman for Israeli police said that as soon as complaints were received the incident had been referred to the Ministry of Justice for investigation. It is now up to the ministry to decide whether further action should be taken against those involved.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616331713.html http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/23/kidonbonnett,0.jpg

Its pointless to use the kid as a shield, Hamas would be happy to kill the kid and blame it on the Israels. At least it wasn't the regular army, I like to think they are a little more professional than that

[zenith-nadir]

If it is true it is a crime. But I am looking at the picture of a boy sitting on a jeep right now and he is not tied to it or shows any signs of being beaten.

( edited for redundant content )

[a_unique_person]

I agree, ZN. The Rabbi who saw the incident and was beaten was obviously another Jew who was not a Real Jew (TM). You will have to hand us an updated list of Jews we can believe and Jews we can't believe. I keep getting confused.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
If it is true it is a crime. But I am looking at the picture of a boy sitting on a jeep right now and he is not tied to it or shows any signs of being beaten.

This picture was shown in a UK newspaper, blowing up his upper-left arm, with the black cloth securing him to the mesh. He is tied to the vehicle.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
This picture was shown in a UK newspaper, blowing up his upper-left arm, with the black cloth securing him to the mesh. He is tied to the vehicle. As I said if it is true it is a crime. But I recognize that black bandana....

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pal-child-abuse/al-aqsa-boy-01.jpg
Black with white is for Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - (courtesy of Littlegreenfootballs.com)

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pal-child-abuse/pal-child-abuse-15.jpg
Green is for Hamas - (courtesy of Littlegreenfootballs.com)

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pal-child-abuse/pal-child-abuse-47.jpg
Black with Gold writing is Islamic Jihad - (courtesy of Littlegreenfootballs.com)

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pal-child-abuse/pal-child-abuse-10.jpg
White with pattern is Fateh - (courtesy of Littlegreenfootballs.com)

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I agree, ZN. The Rabbi who saw the incident and was beaten was obviously another Jew who was not a Real Jew (TM). You will have to hand us an updated list of Jews we can believe and Jews we can't believe. I keep getting confused.

1) I don't see a Rabbi in that picture.

2) I don't see a Rabbi being arrested in the picture.

3) I don't see a Rabbi being beaten in the picture.

4) I don't see stonethrowers in the picture.

5) I don't see a boy being beaten in the picture.

6) I see a boy sitting on a hood of a jeep, and I see a black Al Aqsa bandana on the boys arm, but I cannot tell you if the boy is tied to the jeep.


So every allegation in the www.smh.com.au article is not supported by the Italian journalist's picture shown as "evidence" of the allegations. But I do remember many media outlets reporting about the 500-600 bodies in Jenin.....

[Rob Lister]

While it's probably untrue, I think it might be a stratagy worth investigating. I don't 'think' they actually give a crap about their women and children but I could be wrong. Let's test the idea. Pick some kids (or women!) that throw rocks, tie them to the windshield, and do the math.

If they don't care, why should the Israeli's?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
While it's probably untrue, I think it might be a stratagy worth investigating. I don't 'think' they actually give a crap about their women and children but I could be wrong. Let's test the idea. Pick some kids (or women!) that throw rocks, tie them to the windshield, and do the math.If they don't care, why should the Israeli's? I think it is possible that it happened, I think it is inexcusable if true. Rabbi Arik Ascherman is a well-known political activist, the cough...Alternative Information Centre....cough, is rabidly frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Israel....so who knows what the real story is. Anyhow I await the "Italian journalist's" pictures of the alledged beatings and arrests.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
This picture was shown in a UK newspaper, blowing up his upper-left arm, with the black cloth securing him to the mesh. He is tied to the vehicle.

He certainly does have a bandana tied to his upper left arm, but it seems doubtful that it’s binding him to the jeep. I’m pretty skeptical about this, if I were going to tie someone to a vehicle, I’d tie him by the wrist. It’s both easier to do and more restrictive. I’d also tie both arms, and wouldn’t use the kids own bandana. Apparently these security officers don’t have those plastic cuffs so common today.


Jersualem: The Israeli authorities are investigating allegations a paramilitary border officer tied a 12-year-old Palestinian boy to the bonnet of his four-wheel drive to protect it against stone-throwing protesters.

However, just because it doesn’t look like the kid was tied to the jeep doesn’t mean he wasn’t. If that bandana is binding him, it’s still quite a jump to say he was tied for the purpose of protecting it from thrown rocks rather than just to detain him. Saying that he was tied to the jeep for the purpose of protecting it from thrown rocks doesn’t make a lot of sense when you consider that purpose would have been served just as well by the kid being anywhere among these soldiers.

It’s also worth noting that in Israel, people drive on the right hand side of the road. The kid is sitting on the drivers’ side. If he is tied there, that means nobody planned to move that jeep for a while.


A picture of boy tied to a vehicle was taken last week by an Italian journalist from the Alternative Information Centre and released on the internet.

Ah, the Alternative Information Center!

They have a website, it’s easy to find. Every single article on that website is anti-Israel. It’s my observation that internet news sources with names like independent or alternative translate to news with an agenda, unencumbered by restrictions of verifiability or accuracy.

[ssibal]

Well this just proves that Israel is the most evil nation ever and the 'Palestinians' are completely justified in using whatever means necessary to destroy Israel.......

[crimresearch]

With the available info, it is tempting to ask if this report came from the same reliable sources who reported the massacre of thousands of innocents in Jenin.

Or it could be what is claimed.

Or anything in between.

Paul

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
While it's probably untrue, I think it might be a stratagy worth investigating. I don't 'think' they actually give a crap about their women and children but I could be wrong. Let's test the idea. Pick some kids (or women!) that throw rocks, tie them to the windshield, and do the math.

If they don't care, why should the Israeli's? Let's see Hamas has used women and children as suicide bombers. Saddam used 12 year olds as solders. No one in the Islam community expressed outrage over the killing of the children in the school bus last week in Bagdad. The Muslims keep women and children as slaves in Sudan. Remember the retarded boy with the bomb the Israelis saved? It would seem the Israelis care more for the Palatine children then their own people do, except for the parents.

And lets not forget those loving pictures zn posted.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
If it is true it is a crime. But I am looking at the picture of a boy sitting on a jeep right now and he is not tied to it or shows any signs of being beaten.

( edited for redundant content )

Edited for ********, you mean.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


1) I don't see a Rabbi in that picture.

2) I don't see a Rabbi being arrested in the picture.

3) I don't see a Rabbi being beaten in the picture.

4) I don't see stonethrowers in the picture.

5) I don't see a boy being beaten in the picture.

6) I see a boy sitting on a hood of a jeep, and I see a black Al Aqsa bandana on the boys arm, but I cannot tell you if the boy is tied to the jeep.


So every allegation in the www.smh.com.au article is not supported by the Italian journalist's picture shown as "evidence" of the allegations. But I do remember many media outlets reporting about the 500-600 bodies in Jenin.....

The only evidence you will accept is photographic? You can write off your's and Myrcrot's belief in god then.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Ah, the Alternative Information Center!

They have a website, it’s easy to find. Every single article on that website is anti-Israel. It’s my observation that internet news sources with names like independent or alternative translate to news with an agenda, unencumbered by restrictions of verifiability or accuracy.

So, it never happened that a Rabbi was beaten up, because there isn't a photo of it, but it turns out he wasn't a Real Jew (TM) anyway. Thanks for clearing that up, Mycroft.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The only evidence you will accept is photographic? You can write off your's and Myrcrot's belief in god then.

No, that was the only evidence offered. And if you think you see a beaten, retrained child there, I'd like it if you explained what about that picture makes you think so.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, it never happened that a Rabbi was beaten up, because there isn't a photo of it, but it turns out he wasn't a Real Jew (TM) anyway. Thanks for clearing that up, Mycroft.
Funny, I've done a Google search and can't find any news storys corroborating the original. Who is this "Italian photographer"? The pic is ambiguous at best.

I think your story is complete *********, a_u_p. Do you have a reputable source? You're grasping at straws here, much like the remote viewing woo-woo crowd has their "sources". Prove it or drop it.

[demon]

Another "made up" account of the incident.

quote:
Before ending, I want to return to the youngster who in the picture is sitting on the hood of the jeep; he apparently is also the boy that was beaten. While we had been at the police station, someone phoned me and asked me to verify the shocking news that Rabbi Arik Asherman was being held as a human shield. I phoned Arik, but he did not answer, and I was unable to get hold of anyone else who could ascertain the truth. It was unbelievably appalling, if true. As it turns out, events were even yet worse. Successive attempts to talk to Arik failed. Finally, upon returning home, I phoned his home, and learned that he’d been arrested. Only this morning after speaking to him did I get the full details.

Arik been among those who’d gone to help the boy, and though he’d not seen the beating, he’d found the 12 year old youngster strapped to a jeep, being used as a human shield to curtail rock throwers. Arik and two others, while trying to convince the soldiers to let the child go, while telling them that the practice of using human shields was illegal, were themselves detained and made to stand in front the jeeps. They were not strapped to the jeeps, nor were they told in so many words that they were being used as human shields, but for all practical purposes, they were for the next 2-3 hours. During this time, Arik was butted in the face by the helmeted head of a border police. When I spoke to Arik this morning, he was coming out of the doctors office. In addition to suffering a cut near his nose, he had pain in his shoulder. The child was eventually released, but Arik and the other 2 men were taken to the Givat Ze’v police station. Arik and an international were released around midnight, but the third man, a Palestinian was sent to Offer prison, where he remained this morning (if letter writing is required to release him, I’ll inform you). Arik said that he'd been charged with so many offences that he couldn't remember them all. One of the offences is so inconceivable from Arik that it would be laughable if the situation were not so tragic: he was charged with spouting foul language at the soldiers.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/dorothy_n/613.html

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, it never happened that a Rabbi was beaten up, because there isn't a photo of it, but it turns out he wasn't a Real Jew (TM) anyway. Thanks for clearing that up, Mycroft.

How very odd. You quote me as though you’re responding to me, yet nothing you said relates to anything I said. It’s almost as though you were arguing with someone else while pretending it was me, someone made of straw perhaps?

Well brush away all the straw from your argument, and yes, I do indeed doubt this story for all the reason I've listed previously Also, I doubt the source because it shows a clear agenda. That you disagree with my skepticism, I have no doubt, but if you care to argue with it please address your comments to things I actually say.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


How very odd. You quote me as though you’re responding to me, yet nothing you said relates to anything I said. It’s almost as though you were arguing with someone else while pretending it was me, someone made of straw perhaps?

Well brush away all the straw from your argument, and yes, I do indeed doubt this story for all the reason I've listed previously Also, I doubt the source because it shows a clear agenda. That you disagree with my skepticism, I have no doubt, but if you care to argue with it please address your comments to things I actually say.



He certainly does have a bandana tied to his upper left arm, but it seems doubtful that it’s binding him to the jeep. I’m pretty skeptical about this, if I were going to tie someone to a vehicle, I’d tie him by the wrist. It’s both easier to do and more restrictive. I’d also tie both arms, and wouldn’t use the kids own bandana. Apparently these security officers don’t have those plastic cuffs so common today.



I don't know if you understand the difference between skepticism and blind, pig headed ignorance. Let's just ask the simplest question, then. WTF is he doing sitting on the bonnet of an IDF jeep? Admiring the view? Playing soldier? Waiting for a ride around the block? Can you give me one reasoble reason why he would be sitting there except that he was made to?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

Funny, I've done a Google search and can't find any news storys corroborating the original. Who is this "Italian photographer"? The pic is ambiguous at best.

I think your story is complete *********, a_u_p. Do you have a reputable source? You're grasping at straws here, much like the remote viewing woo-woo crowd has their "sources". Prove it or drop it.

The Sydney Morning Herald is a reputable Australian newspaper. I didn't start the thread. Just because no one else has the story, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Have you ever wondered how it is that many, many more Palestinian children have died than Israeli children, but we never hear about it?

Israel runs Palestine, and actively discourages independent observers, press or otherwise. This is to keep you in ignorance.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't know if you understand the difference between skepticism and blind, pig headed ignorance.

Do you?

Day after day, week after week you continue with your anti-Israel, anti-America campaign. Every time you find something negative, you start a new thread. Every facet of history, every piece of information, you interpret in a negative way. Do you pretend this is objectivity? Do you think this demonstrates skepticism on your part?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's just ask the simplest question, then. WTF is he doing sitting on the bonnet of an IDF jeep? Admiring the view? Playing soldier? Waiting for a ride around the block? Can you give me one reasoble reason why he would be sitting there except that he was made to?

Oh, I think e was detained for some reason. Similar things happen not far from where I live. You know, police detaining kids.

The jump here is looking at a picture of a kid sitting on a car and turning it into a war crime, saying that kid was tied to the car for the purpose of being used as a human shield. That’s a stretch.

The best lies are exaggeration. Something happened, there was a protest, there was teargas. All of that is probable. After the action was over, at least one kid was detained. While he was detained, they sat him on the hood of the car. It’s very easy to embellish this raw material into something more than it is, leaving a doubter in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative.

Was he tied there? Well, from the photo, it doesn’t look likely. There is a bandana on his arm, but it doesn’t appear to be tying him to the jeep. It could be, it’s not ruled out, but it seems like an unlikely bond.

Was the kid beat up? Well, he does look scared, but he doesn’t look beaten up.

Is the kid being used as a human shield? Well, if we look at the link Demon provided, this was a non-violent protest, and they had previously sent the rock-thrower home. Why would they need a human shield?

Overall, it doesn’t add up.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you ever wondered how it is that many, many more Palestinian children have died than Israeli children, but we never hear about it?

And why do palestinian children die? If the above pictures haven't clued you in here's some more clues why;

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040424/s/r1915657439.jpg
Photo by Loay Abu Haykel/Reuters

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040424/s/r2939031809.jpg
Photo by REUTERS/Majed Jaber

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021202/wd.jpg
uncredited image

http://www.kalmanovitz.co.il/k_comm/english/Israel/Daily_pics/2001/05_01/15_05_01/PalestinianKids1505011M.jpg
uncredited image


Originally posted by a_unique_person
Israel runs PalestineThose three words tell you everything about a_u_p that you ever needed to know...

[a_unique_person]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person
Israel runs Palestine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those three words tell you everything about a_u_p that you ever needed to know...



I don't know what else you can call a military occupation.

Did you read what the protest was about. More land being taken. It's the same story for the past 40 years.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Sydney Morning Herald is a reputable Australian newspaper.


Maybe, I don't know. I do know that sometimes even reputable news sources get taken in by other organizations with an agenda to push. The Sydney Morning Herald got its information from the Alternative Information Center, they say so in the article. The AIC aparantly exists to bash Israel.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I didn't start the thread. Just because no one else has the story, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It doesn't mean it did happen either, at least not as described.

You understand the difference between something that could be true and something that is true, don't you? There are all kinds of people that believe ridiculous things because they could be true, and I feel sorry for them. You know the types, they say things like I feel that life on earth came from Mars or [/i]I believe I can be healed through mango-therapy[/i] and in their minds that’s proof enough because they don’t know any facts that prove otherwise and it conforms to how they want the world to be. Sad.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you ever wondered how it is that many, many more Palestinian children have died than Israeli children, but we never hear about it?

No, I wonder how it is that you think nobody hears about it when I hear about it all the time. Yes, it’s war. Yes, it’s very sad, but innocents die in war. If you’re really concerned about the children, then you want this war to end. Terrorism will not end this war.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Israel runs Palestine, and actively discourages independent observers, press or otherwise. This is to keep you in ignorance.

Then explain how Haaretz, B’tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Alternative Information Center and countless other organizations get their information? C’mon, you can’t have it both ways, either Israel has a free press, which includes freedom to these ultra-liberal activist organizations, or it doesn’t and these organizations just make stuff up. Which is it?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't know what else you can call a military occupation.

Did you read what the protest was about. More land being taken. It's the same story for the past 40 years.

Ah, deflection. Lose on one set of facts, just switch to a different topic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Maybe, I don't know. I do know that sometimes even reputable news sources get taken in by other organizations with an agenda to push. The Sydney Morning Herald got its information from the Alternative Information Center, they say so in the article. The AIC aparantly exists to bash Israel.



I keep forgetting, these guys aren't Real Jews (TM). I will only refer to CAMERA from now on.





It doesn't mean it did happen either, at least not as described.

You understand the difference between something that could be true and something that is true, don't you? There are all kinds of people that believe ridiculous things because they could be true, and I feel sorry for them. You know the types, they say things like I feel that life on earth came from Mars or [/i]I believe I can be healed through mango-therapy[/i] and in their minds that’s proof enough because they don’t know any facts that prove otherwise and it conforms to how they want the world to be. Sad.




Yeah, but their photo's are a lot grainier.



No, I wonder how it is that you think nobody hears about it when I hear about it all the time. Yes, it’s war. Yes, it’s very sad, but innocents die in war. If you’re really concerned about the children, then you want this war to end. Terrorism will not end this war.



BS. I hear far more about the terrorist strikes than the attacks on Palestinians. Then when there is an actual article with a photo, there is always some ridiculous story about how it is really marsh gas reacting with light from Venus.



Then explain how Haaretz, B’tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Alternative Information Center and countless other organizations get their information? C’mon, you can’t have it both ways, either Israel has a free press, which includes freedom to these ultra-liberal activist organizations, or it doesn’t and these organizations just make stuff up. Which is it?

Which is it then, the story is real, or it isn't. You are the one who wants it both ways. The free press is free, to an extent. First of all you have to get the story. Pretty hard when you risk your life just getting it. Eg, the Rabbi who was assaulted and had to go to hospital. The IS members, (Who's politics you may not agree with) are shot for being there to tell people what is going on.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I keep forgetting, these guys aren't Real Jews (TM). I will only refer to CAMERA from now on.

Keep pounding away at this straw man.

Of course Rabbi Arik Ascherman is a Real Jew (TM). By your standards, he’s the worst kind. Born in the USA and having immigrated to Israel makes him a Zionist, and being a Rabbi makes him a religious zealot.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yeah, but their photo's are a lot grainier.

But similar. Light in the sky? It must be a visitor from another planet. Kid sitting on a car? He must be a human shield.


Originally posted by a_unique_person
BS. I hear far more about the terrorist strikes than the attacks on Palestinians. Then when there is an actual article with a photo, there is always some ridiculous story about how it is really marsh gas reacting with light from Venus.

Marsh gas. How bizarre.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Which is it then, the story is real, or it isn't. You are the one who wants it both ways. The free press is free, to an extent. First of all you have to get the story. Pretty hard when you risk your life just getting it. Eg, the Rabbi who was assaulted and had to go to hospital. The IS members, (Who's politics you may not agree with) are shot for being there to tell people what is going on.

There is nothing about a free press that guarantees unbiased reporting. Quite the opposite, in fact. Freedom of the press does include freedom to print one-sided exaggerations with a political agenda. You’re still the one simultaneously claiming that Israel blocks the press, and only these ultra-leftist organization can get the Truth (tm) out.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Is the kid being used as a human shield? Well, if we look at the link Demon provided, this was a non-violent protest, and they had previously sent the rock-thrower home. Why would they need a human shield? Overall, it doesn’t add up.

Another point: the kid is (supposedly) tied to the jeep RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT, BLOCKING THE DRIVER'S VIEW. If you want to use someone as a human shield for your vechile, why tie him up precisely where it obstructs your view and makes it impossible to drive it? Makes no sense, if you ask me...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal
Well this just proves that Israel is the most evil nation ever and the 'Palestinians' are completely justified in using whatever means necessary to destroy Israel.......

I have never claimed it is the most evil country ever, nor do I think it is. But just try and get the rent a crowd here to admt it ever does anything wrong. Don't hold your breathe.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Keep pounding away at this straw man.

Of course Rabbi Arik Ascherman is a Real Jew (TM). By your standards, he’s the worst kind. Born in the USA and having immigrated to Israel makes him a Zionist, and being a Rabbi makes him a religious zealot.



Being religious does not make you a Zealot, acting like one does. You are the maker of strawmen.




But similar. Light in the sky? It must be a visitor from another planet. Kid sitting on a car? He must be a human shield.

Marsh gas. How bizarre.

There is nothing about a free press that guarantees unbiased reporting. Quite the opposite, in fact. Freedom of the press does include freedom to print one-sided exaggerations with a political agenda. You’re still the one simultaneously claiming that Israel blocks the press, and only these ultra-leftist organization can get the Truth (tm) out.

The IS members aren't just getting a story out, they are literally risking their lives to do so. When you have to risk your life to get a story, I wonder how free the press is.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The IS members aren't just getting a story out, they are literally risking their lives to do so. When you have to risk your life to get a story, I wonder how free the press is.

A reporter trying to get a story does not participate in the events. ISM members are protesters. They create the story, and then report it.

Do you see the difference?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have never claimed it is the most evil country ever, nor do I think it is. But just try and get the rent a crowd here to admt it ever does anything wrong. Don't hold your breathe.

That Israel, or any country for that matter, does anything wrong is a given. Of course Israel does wrong and so does every other nation in the world. Unless someone on this board is claiming that Israel does no wrong then there is no reason for anyone to admit anything.

[demon]

The IDF have form in using human shields.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/israel0509.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


A reporter trying to get a story does not participate in the events. ISM members are protesters. They create the story, and then report it.

Do you see the difference?

They do not create the story. They are a part of the issue, but there are very few people from outside Palestine who go there and put their lives on the line.



Political negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians were deadlocked at the end of 2002. Israeli repression and Palestinian suicide-bombings had killed more than 2,850 people, three quarters of them Palestinians, since the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000. The year also saw a new low in relations between the foreign media and the Israeli government, which accused journalists of being biased and was determined to win the "media war." Western and Arab (especially Palestinian) journalists were obstructed daily while doing their job. Three were killed and eight others wounded by gunfire while reporting in the Occupied Territories.



http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=153&Valider=OK

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They do not create the story. They are a part of the issue, but there are very few people from outside Palestine who go there and put their lives on the line.

They are not journalists, they are activists. Do you understand the difference?
Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=153&Valider=OK

There is an interesting map on that page, coulor coded to show the degree of problems nation by nation. Did you look at it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


They are not journalists, they are activists. Do you understand the difference?


There is an interesting map on that page, coulor coded to show the degree of problems nation by nation. Did you look at it?

No, I mean yes, I mean, no. Are you trying to trick me?

Sorry, Mycroft, of course I looked at it. If we were to say, debate that Libya is not fair in it's treatment of journalists, and is not a free and open state, I think we would both agree, end of story. But that is not the point of this debate now, is it? Perhaps you could argue the point.

[Skeptic]

If we were to say, debate that Libya is not fair in it's treatment of journalists, and is not a free and open state, I think we would both agree, end of story. But that is not the point of this debate now, is it?

But it's NEVER the point of the debate with you. It is ONLY the "point" to debate how awful israel (or the jews, or the USA) is, while ignoring or simply dismissing as "not the point of the debate" the violations by everybody else.

Clearly, you don't really give a damn for freedom of the press, or human rights, or national aspirations, or democracy, or anything of that nature--you only "care" about it when you can use it to bash israel or the USA for violating such principles.

Torture in Libya? Genocide in Sudan? Ethnic cleansing in Jordan? Who cares--when you can't blame the jews for the atrocity, why bother bringing it up?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I mean yes, I mean, no. Are you trying to trick me?

Sorry, Mycroft, of course I looked at it. If we were to say, debate that Libya is not fair in it's treatment of journalists, and is not a free and open state, I think we would both agree, end of story. But that is not the point of this debate now, is it? Perhaps you could argue the point.

Of course, it's long been established that comparisons are only valuable when they make the United States or Israel look bad, so ignoring the maroon "very serious" colouring of Syria and Saudi Arabia, and the red "difficult situation" of every other nation within two thousand miles (save Jordan and Lebanon) we see that Israel is a mild beige "noticeable problems", which while isn’t perfect simply doesn't fit with your portrayal of Israel as being a country that keeps the world in “ignorance.”

Incidentally, while I know comparisons are taboo, that beige colour is the same colour given to about half of Europe.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But it's NEVER the point of the debate with you. It is ONLY the "point" to debate how awful israel (or the jews, or the USA) is, while ignoring or simply dismissing as "not the point of the debate" the violations by everybody else.


Unless one simply wants to condemn terrorism, then suddenly one can bring up all the "crimes" of the United States, equating every military action that ever was to show that the United States is "just as bad."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If we were to say, debate that Libya is not fair in it's treatment of journalists, and is not a free and open state, I think we would both agree, end of story. But that is not the point of this debate now, is it?

But it's NEVER the point of the debate with you. It is ONLY the "point" to debate how awful israel (or the jews, or the USA) is, while ignoring or simply dismissing as "not the point of the debate" the violations by everybody else.

Clearly, you don't really give a damn for freedom of the press, or human rights, or national aspirations, or democracy, or anything of that nature--you only "care" about it when you can use it to bash israel or the USA for violating such principles.

Torture in Libya? Genocide in Sudan? Ethnic cleansing in Jordan? Who cares--when you can't blame the jews for the atrocity, why bother bringing it up?

Let me try again. Libya is run by a totalitarian dictator. Libya suppresses free speech and other basic human rights. We all hope that one day the Libyan people will achieve a free state without these impositions on their rights.

I don't disagree with that, I guess you don't disagree with that.

As to Israel and the US, I hold them to higher standards, or they can stop pretending they hold higher standards. Sharon is certainly making it clear that he doesn't hold Israel to higher standards. Good, now we can all agree that he is what he says he is, a person who is out to destroy a nation. End of debate.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As to Israel and the US, I hold them to higher standards, or they can stop pretending they hold higher standards. Sharon is certainly making it clear that he doesn't hold Israel to higher standards. Good, now we can all agree that he is what he says he is, a person who is out to destroy a nation. End of debate.

End of debate! Good, we're done!

Except...

What exactly do you think it means, destroy a nation? Do you intrepret that to mean literal destruction of the people, as in killing them all? Political destruction of their leadership? What?

I think that's an important point to clarify, don't you?

P.S. It's good that you hold Israel to a higher standard than say to Libya or Syria, I do too. Do you hold them to a higher standard than Europe?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


End of debate! Good, we're done!

Except...

What exactly do you think it means, destroy a nation? Do you intrepret that to mean literal destruction of the people, as in killing them all? Political destruction of their leadership? What?

I think that's an important point to clarify, don't you?

P.S. It's good that you hold Israel to a higher standard than say to Libya or Syria, I do too. Do you hold them to a higher standard than Europe?

Europe is a concept, not a country. However, if we take France for example. I don't think France avoided Iraq for reasons of high principle, but because it was thinking along the lines of Colin Powell. Once you get into their problem, it's damned hard to get out.

Germany, for example, was the perpatrator of the infamous Holocaust. I certainly expect higher standards of behaviour from it, and it appears to have tried to do just that.

Spain has it's ongoing problem with the Basque separatists. It appears that the solution Spain has come up with, a self governing state within Spain, is acceptable to the majority of Basques. The recent train bombings, at first suspected of being the work of Basques, brought out huge demonstrations of Basques saying they didn't want to be part of any more violence, what they had was acceptable.

GB has screwed around with Ireland for hundreds of years. It is stuck with Northern Ireland being a tiny area, with large amounts of hatred. The peace process stumbles along like a blind man from crises to crises, but it is still infinitely better than the situation was 20 years ago.

Cyprus looked like it was heading to a peaceful conclusion, but the latest vote for it's future threw up what appears to me to be a huge problem. The Turkish side voted in favour of the latest proposal, the Greek side turned it down.

Czeckoslovakia has appeared to have achieved a peaceful division into the Czeck Republic and Slovakia.

Yugoslavia, after massive amounts of blood was spilt, appears to be stabilising into a situation where only small amounts of blood are being spilt. Better, but still not acceptable.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


End of debate! Good, we're done!

Except...

What exactly do you think it means, destroy a nation? Do you intrepret that to mean literal destruction of the people, as in killing them all? Political destruction of their leadership? What?

I think that's an important point to clarify, don't you?



That is the 64 dollar question, isn't it. Just what does Sharon and Likud have in mind for the Palestinians. They don't have a country. They aren't citizens of anything. They appear to inhabit some sort of Twilight Zone.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That is the 64 dollar question, isn't it. Just what does Sharon and Likud have in mind for the Palestinians. They don't have a country. They aren't citizens of anything. They appear to inhabit some sort of Twilight Zone.

So you're saying you don't know what he meant?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Europe is a concept, not a country. However, if we take France for example. I don't think France avoided Iraq for reasons of high principle, but because it was thinking along the lines of Colin Powell. Once you get into their problem, it's damned hard to get out...



I should have clarified. You and I were talking the press, before you and Skeptic started talking about other things. I meant, do you hold Israel to a higher standard than Europe in that manor.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That is the 64 dollar question, isn't it. Just what does Sharon and Likud have in mind for the Palestinians. They don't have a country. They aren't citizens of anything. They appear to inhabit some sort of Twilight Zone. Gotta love this crap. Pure unadulterated musings of one twisted man.

Sharon was elected in 2000, Arafat has been the leader of the palestinians since 1969. Since when is Sharon responsible for palestinians? Isn't the palestinians own leader responsible for the palestinians?

(I give a_u_p one sentence, maybe two, to blame Sharon again... ;) )

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I should have clarified. You and I were talking the press, before you and Skeptic started talking about other things. I meant, do you hold Israel to a higher standard than Europe in that manor.

Well, I can't recall anywhere in those countries I listed where journalists put their lives at risk by doing their job. You can look up numerous examples on the internet where Israel actively harrasses and even causes the deaths of journalists just for doing their job.

You can just refer to that 'Jenin massacre'. You guys are always keen to point out that the massacre never happened, just look at the UN's own report. I point out that it qualifies the report right from the start by saying that they weren't allowed in to investigate the area.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Well, I can't recall anywhere in those countries I listed where journalists put their lives at risk by doing their job.
Are any of those countries at war at the moment?


Originally posted by a_unique_person
You can look up numerous examples on the internet where Israel actively harrasses and even causes the deaths of journalists just for doing their job.
You can find all sorts of things on the Internet. The story that started this thread, for example.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You can just refer to that 'Jenin massacre'. You guys are always keen to point out that the massacre never happened, just look at the UN's own report. I point out that it qualifies the report right from the start by saying that they weren't allowed in to investigate the area.

Hey, a second ago you were decrying journalists putting their lives at risk, and here you bash Israel for not letting them in before the area was secure.

Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. Is it fair to hold Israel to the same standard as Europe?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mycroft


So you're saying you don't know what he meant?

Oh yeah, whenever you get around to this one too.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I agree, ZN. The Rabbi who saw the incident and was beaten was obviously another Jew who was not a Real Jew (TM). You will have to hand us an updated list of Jews we can believe and Jews we can't believe. I keep getting confused.

Someone has to call you on your inability to read. No rabbi was beaten. Read it again. The rabbi went to checki t out after hearing from, oh my gosh, Palestinians that the kid was beaten. If I was an "evil Israeli" I'd have beaten him better than what he appears to be in the pic and then gotten the camera and destroyed it. Isn't that how your conspiracies work?

And if the kid is a shield why is the dude using the radio in a vehicle without a kid shield?

He was shivering with "cold or fear"? That seems a bit undetermined, doesn't it? Or is the rabbi activist not trained to know the difference.

Here's an odd idea, let them investigate then realize you were wrong but claim conspiracy like you usually do. This way we get the truth and you can be right, whether you are or not. Business as usual on the JREF boards.

[Troll]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Gotta love this crap. Pure unadulterated musings of one twisted man.

Sharon was elected in 2000, Arafat has been the leader of the palestinians since 1969. Since when is Sharon responsible for palestinians? Isn't the palestinians own leader responsible for the palestinians?

(I give a_u_p one sentence, maybe two, to blame Sharon again... ;) )

What Palestinian leadership? Arafat, Hamas or Hezbolla, I can't spell Al-asqr martyrs brigade correctly so they get a free ride on this one.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft

Are any of those countries at war at the moment?



And as we know, the purpose of a government at war is to manage the propaganda. Ref, pictures of coffins coming back from Iraq.




You can find all sorts of things on the Internet. The story that started this thread, for example.



I am talking about reputable sources. Eg, the JSF one I provided.






Hey, a second ago you were decrying journalists putting their lives at risk, and here you bash Israel for not letting them in before the area was secure.

Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. Is it fair to hold Israel to the same standard as Europe?

This wasn't journalists, it was UN Investigators, willing to put their lives at risk to find out the facts.

Is not fair to hold them to the same standards. Israel constantly tells me, they are a western style democracy. They will have to act like one before i will accept that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


Someone has to call you on your inability to read. No rabbi was beaten. Read it again. The rabbi went to checki t out after hearing from, oh my gosh, Palestinians that the kid was beaten. If I was an "evil Israeli" I'd have beaten him better than what he appears to be in the pic and then gotten the camera and destroyed it. Isn't that how your conspiracies work?

And if the kid is a shield why is the dude using the radio in a vehicle without a kid shield?

He was shivering with "cold or fear"? That seems a bit undetermined, doesn't it? Or is the rabbi activist not trained to know the difference.

Here's an odd idea, let them investigate then realize you were wrong but claim conspiracy like you usually do. This way we get the truth and you can be right, whether you are or not. Business as usual on the JREF boards.

I don't know what else you'd call being head butted in the face with a helmet.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is not fair to hold them to the same standards. Israel constantly tells me, they are a western style democracy. They will have to act like one before i will accept that.

Nice riposte. While technically you did give an answer, no one would expect you to stand by an answer with a punch line. As a bonus, you got in another dig at Israel.

Now, do you have the courage to just give an honest answer without being flip? C’mon, you’re being paranoid about this.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You can just refer to that 'Jenin massacre'. You guys are always keen to point out that the massacre never happened, just look at the UN's own report. I point out that it qualifies the report right from the start by saying that they weren't allowed in to investigate the area.a_u_p is still trying to sell the masssacre in Jenin to everyone like we are fools. That is why I refuse to debate anymore WITH A KNOWN LIAR.



UN says no massacre in Jenin - Thursday, 1 August, 2002, 14:47 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm) A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin.
'No Jenin massacre' says rights group - Friday, 3 May, 2002, 00:19 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1965471.stm) The campaigning group Human Rights Watch has completed a report into the Israeli army's operation in the Palestinian town of Jenin. The report says there was no massacre as the Palestinians have claimed, but it does accuse the Israeli army of committing war crimes.
U.N.: No evidence of Israeli massacre at Jenin - August 1, 2002 Posted: 11:09 AM EDT (1509 GMT) (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/31/un.jenin.report/) UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- A U.N. report on events at the Jenin refugee camp released Thursday found no evidence to support a Palestinian claim that 500 people were killed there by Israeli forces earlier this year.



a_u_p is a liar and I just proved that. No debate required.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
a_u_p is still trying to sell the masssacre in Jenin to everyone like we are fools. That is why I refuse to debate anymore WITH A KNOWN LIAR.



UN says no massacre in Jenin - Thursday, 1 August, 2002, 14:47 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm)
'No Jenin massacre' says rights group - Friday, 3 May, 2002, 00:19 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1965471.stm)
U.N.: No evidence of Israeli massacre at Jenin - August 1, 2002 Posted: 11:09 AM EDT (1509 GMT) (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/31/un.jenin.report/)



a_u_p is a liar and I just proved that. No debate required.

You just don't get it, do you ****wit.



The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators



No evidence means exactly that. Now, if you deny someone the opportunity to examine the scene unemcumbered, you are denying them the opportunity to investigate. On the evidence they could gather, they made the conclusions they could make.

My concern, and the whole point you once again seem to be totally unable to grasp due to your degenerate mental abilities, was that Israel felt compelled to impede investigators. They are saying, in effect, "We have nothing to hide, trust us".

Now, try to get what few brain cells you have to work, and see if you can understand this basic principle.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You just don't get it, do you f**kwit.

No evidence means exactly that...


What you don't get is that the UN concluded that there was no massacre. They did not say we don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

What you must recall, and probably choose not to, is that Israel objected to the composition of the team the UN sent to perform their investigation. Apparently the UN didn't think it was important to include members who were knowledgeable about urban warfare and terrorism, who could give an informed opinion about what was an appropriate level of force used, but instead chose people who would be knowledgeable in humanitarian relief.

Me, I think Israel’s concerns were very well grounded. If someone is sent to make a judgment, they should be qualified to make an informed judgment. That the UN didn’t make any effort to include members with the appropriate expertise puts a big question mark on the UN’s neutrality on the issue.

And again, the UN did determine there was no massacre.

The Composition of the Fact-Finding Team
The team was composed of individuals with expertise largely in the area of humanitarian relief -- not counter-terrorism. It is doubtful, given this professional background, that they would have the ability to judge the extent of the terrorist threat to Israel that emanated from Jenin. Equally, these humanitarian aid experts would not be able to establish that Israel employed a proportional level of military force by using ground forces in house-to-house combat. The fact that one team member, Cornelio Sommaruga, once compared the Star of David to the swastika when he was president of the International Red Cross, did not give Israelis a sense that the team members were chosen to make a fair and balanced judgment.

The UN Double-Standard
The UN did not want to explicitly commit itself beforehand to investigate the scale of Palestinian terrorism in the Jenin refugee camp. It appeared to be more interested in the consequences of Israeli military action and not its causes. This was also evident from the team's composition. The UN faced a difficult problem in Jenin. How did a refugee camp supported by UNRWA become the "capital of suicide bombers." Israel found that a local UNRWA worker, in fact, had posters praising suicide bombers.

http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-22.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


What you don't get is that the UN concluded that there was no massacre. They did not say we don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

What you must recall, and probably choose not to, is that Israel objected to the composition of the team the UN sent to perform their investigation. Apparently the UN didn't think it was important to include members who were knowledgeable about urban warfare and terrorism, who could give an informed opinion about what was an appropriate level of force used, but instead chose people who would be knowledgeable in humanitarian relief.

Me, I think Israel’s concerns were very well grounded. If someone is sent to make a judgment, they should be qualified to make an informed judgment. That the UN didn’t make any effort to include members with the appropriate expertise puts a big question mark on the UN’s neutrality on the issue.

And again, the UN did determine there was no massacre.



http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-22.htm

Mycroft, are you as stupid as ZN. Can you understand what the basic principal I am getting at is. Open-nes, transparency, honesty. Israel displayed none of that when it blocked access to Jenin.

These are all fundamental, basic, principals for the being a western style democracy, which Israel assures me it is. But without that, it isn't. It's just putting on a good show.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Mycroft, are you as stupid as ZN. Can you understand what the basic principal I am getting at is. Open-nes, transparency, honesty. Israel displayed none of that when it blocked access to Jenin.

If course. That’s why I brought up the issue of the composition of the UN team. Looking only at the information you provide, someone might come to the conclusion that Israel initially blocked access because they had something to hide. Knowing the other side, that there were very important issues with who was and who was not on that team, is also important in understanding what happened.

And it’s also important to understand that the United Nations did indeed come to a conclusion, and that conclusion was that there was no massacre. While the United Nations did still criticize Israel for blocking access initially, they did get access and were satisfied enough to come to a conclusion. They did not say, we cannot come to a conclusion.

I’m sure it’s very annoying to you that not everybody lets your innuendo stand unchallenged, and I’m sure that’s why you use terms such as f*ckwit and stupid, but if someone giving the other side to a story is something you can’t tolerate, then perhaps a skeptics forum is not for you.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
These are all fundamental, basic, principals for the being a western style democracy, which Israel assures me it is. But without that, it isn't. It's just putting on a good show.

Even western style democracies will restrict access to combat zones. Even a western style democracy has a right to be concerned about the impartiality and qualifications of those sent to judge them.

In essence, what we have here is a national equivalent of a legal investigation. Western style democracies hold to the principle that the accused does have rights in such an investigation. In this case, Israel asserted those rights by insisting that those sent to investigate have relevant qualifications to understand what it was they were investigating. That sounds perfectly reasonable and fair to me.

[Skeptic]

No evidence means exactly that.

That's not what the UN concluded. It did NOT conclude that it did not have enough evidence to decide if there was a massacre in Jenin. It DID conclude that it HAD enough evidence to decide there WAS NO MASSACRE.

Which part of that didn't you understand?

On the evidence they could gather, they made the conclusions they could make.

Oh, I see.

So, israel managed an all-powerful, complete, and traceless erasure of all evidence of the unspeakable crimes within weeks of its occurence, and that is the "real reason" the UN commission decided there was no massacre. They were all fooled by the evil, scheming, evidence-hiding israelies.

Gee, that's strange; massacres are often revealed YEARS after the fact when NOBODY was allowed access at the time and there are CONCENTRATED efforts to hide the traces, as was the case with Nazi, Soviet, Serb, Cambodian, Rowandan, South African, etc., etc., etc., war crimes; somehow the UN (and other investigators) did manage to find evidence of massacres despite all that.

Obviously, israel has secret brain-control or evidence-erasing capacities, managing to erase in weeks evidence of the sort other nations couldn't erase in years, and completely dupe UN experts other nations couldn't fool for a moment.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the "massacre" was a Palestinian propaganda lie...

AUP's modus operandi here could be best understood by referring to an old joke from Nazi Germany. The joke compares the old-style and new-style antisemitism in the legal system. In the old days, the judge would say, "he is a jew, but he is innocent", and acquit. In the Third Reich, the judge would say, "he is innocent, but he is a jew", and convict.

The UN in this case acted like the old-style judge; a UN investigation committee--not especially suspected of sympathy to israel--declared, in effect, "Yes, it's the awful israel that is accused, the one our bosses condemn day and night, but it is innocent, so we acquit it of the charge of massacre".

AUP will not have any of that; his view is, "Yes, it was shown to be innocent, but it is israel we're talking about; if they think it's innocent it's surely because a conspiracy that hid evidence fooled them, so I convict it of the charge of massacre."

"A Unique Person" would make a great judge in Nazi Germany.

[a_unique_person]

Mycroft, can you understand this principle? Justice must be seen, to be done. No seeing, no justice. The UN was prepared to take the risk of entering a 'war zone'.

And I'll call anyone as ********** up as ZN a ****wit. When he can't understand a simple point I am making, then calls me a 'liar, end of story', for making a point that I didn't make, I'll call him for what he is.

You can just about see him spinning on the spot as soon as he reads the work Jenin, and looking for his smileys. Too bad he can't read.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Mycroft, can you understand this principle? Justice must be seen, to be done. No seeing, no justice. The UN was prepared to take the risk of entering a 'war zone'.

Right. You have a problem distinguishing between ideas that sound similar, but are different. I think the real question is this on purpose or not.

Your idea: On the evidence they could gather, they made the conclusions they could make.

The truth: It did NOT conclude that it did not have enough evidence to decide if there was a massacre in Jenin. It DID conclude that it HAD enough evidence to decide there WAS NO MASSACRE.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And I'll call anyone as f**ked up as ZN a f**kwit. When he can't understand a simple point I am making, then calls me a 'liar, end of story', for making a point that I didn't make, I'll call him for what he is.

I don’t know that I’d call you a liar. I guess it really depends on if your inability to make a distinction between the meaning of the two above statements is purposeful or not. If it’s purposeful, then you’re a skilled propagandist. If it’s not, then you’re just not too bright.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Right. You have a problem distinguishing between ideas that sound similar, but are different. I think the real question is this on purpose or not.

Your idea: On the evidence they could gather, they made the conclusions they could make.

The truth: It did NOT conclude that it did not have enough evidence to decide if there was a massacre in Jenin. It DID conclude that it HAD enough evidence to decide there WAS NO MASSACRE.



Can I go back to the first claim I made. Perhaps that will clarify for you the point I am trying to make.



You can just refer to that 'Jenin massacre'. You guys are always keen to point out that the massacre never happened, just look at the UN's own report. I point out that it qualifies the report right from the start by saying that they weren't allowed in to investigate the area.



How can you have a valid investigation when you aren't allowed to investigate. A 'war zone' is not a 'you cannot know the truth zone'. You either let them investigate, or you don't. All I can tell from the UN report is that there was no known massacre, but Israel had something to hide.

Apart from all that, the estimated number of dead is for some reason of no consequence. Perhaps it is because they are Palestinians.


I don’t know that I’d call you a liar. I guess it really depends on if your inability to make a distinction between the meaning of the two above statements is purposeful or not. If it’s purposeful, then you’re a skilled propagandist. If it’s not, then you’re just not too bright. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How can you have a valid investigation when you aren't allowed to investigate. A 'war zone' is not a 'you cannot know the truth zone'. You either let them investigate, or you don't. All I can tell from the UN report is that there was no known massacre, but Israel had something to hide.

And you can come to that conclusion only by ignoring the Israeli concerns over the composition of the team. Cripes, all they asked is that the UN send someone with a military background who might understand what they were looking at. Essentially you're implying that Israel must be guilty of something simply because they asked for investigators that were qualified.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Apart from all that, the estimated number of dead is for some reason of no consequence. Perhaps it is because they are Palestinians.


Pure straw and blatantly false. The number of dead was the primary focus of everyone involved, and if it was as you say, that nobody cared because they were Palestinian, then Jenin would never have been an issue to begin with.

Which brings us to another issue, Israel chose a much more dangerous (to the Israelis) ground assault with infantry over other much safer options. How many times in these forums do you see the United States criticized for dropping daisy-cutter bombs that kill civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq? Well, here Israel chose not to do that. In typical AUP fashion, they get damned anyway.

[Skeptic]

How can you have a valid investigation when you aren't allowed to investigate.

Apparently, they themselves did not consider the fact that they arrived a couple of weeks later as an impediment to the investigation or "not being allowed to investigate". See their report that they concluded there was no massacre.

They could have said "there isn't enough evidence", or "we were not allowed to investigate the truth", or "information was hidden from us", or "more investigation needed", but they didn't. They concluded quite simply that there was no massacre. Besides, investigations of such allegations often happens years after the fact and still make valid conclusions. See my above post.

It is you--and ONLY YOU, NOT THE UN TEAM--that thinks the fact that the team arrived a few weeks later due to israeli objection to its members as being "not allowed to investigate". It is you--and ONLY YOU, NOT THE UN TEAM--that thinks this time was used for some sort of wonderfully efficient israeli coverup. It is you--AND ONLY YOU, NOT THE UN TEAM--that thinks that the UN results of no massacre cannot be trusted.

You, in your infinite wisdom, "know" there was a coverup that fooled the UN team of experts--which NONE OF THEM ALLEGE. Why? Do you know more than them? No, it's simply that you hate jews more than them, so you will cling to Palestinian propaganda about a non-existant "massacre" no matter what.

Besides, as for this being a war zone, if they HAD arrived and some of them got hurt, you'd be saying that it was a deliberate israeli conspiracy to "scare away reporters to hide their crimes", or that the very fact that israel allowed reporters into a war zone is "flagrant disregard of their safety in an attempt to scare them away". If israel allow them in, it's evil; if it doesn't, it's also evil. No wonder you have so many "proofs" of israeli evil...

All I can tell from the UN report is that there was no known massacre, but Israel had something to hide.

Of course that's all YOU can tell--notice how nimbly you change the UN's report of "no massacre" to your own formulation of "no known massacre", meaning "there was a massacre that was hidden"--but you're the only one who reached these conclusions from the UN report.

Other people, amazingly enough, actually concluded that "there is no massacre" in the UN report MEANS there is no massacre, and that the UN report didn't complain they were not allowed to investigate and did not demand more investigations as evidence that the UN DID investigate the situation.

Whatever drove them to such an insane conclusion, I have no idea.

[a_unique_person]

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators.

.....


The BBC's Greg Barrow at the UN says the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made.



Can you understand the basic principle, Israel should have no say, at all, in the UN investigation. Why should it? It is a UN investigation, into a military action in a civilian area. Anyone can come from overseas, and investigate any area of Australian society if they want. If they can't they can report that too, and Australia should be held to account for it.

A good example is the refugee detention centres. They are a disgrace to Australia, and Australia should be held accountable for them. Please, come and investigate and report on them. And if you are not allowed to speak to those in detention, please report that too. These are matters that a free society should not tolerate.

If you are brave enough to go into Iraq, you can go anywhere you want. The US troops, AFAIK, will not stop you. They will not intimidate you. They will not shoot at you because you are from the UN or the press.

The only conclusion one can draw is that Israel does not support opennes and transparency. The UN was not allowed to investigate. It has hindered from investigating. The lack of this is grounds enough for concern.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mycroft
In typical AUP fashion, they get damned anyway.

1) The Palestinian Authority allows palestinian terror groups to base themselves in palestinian civilian areas. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

2) Palestinian terror groups do not wear uniforms, they disguise themselves like palestinian civilians. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

3) Palestinian terror groups use palestinian civilian neighborhoods for bomb factories, bases and firing positions, in military terms that is known as cover and concealment, in laymans terms, human shields. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

4) Palestinian terror groups use child soldiers and women, ambulances and children to transport arms and explosives. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

5) Arafat has stolen billions (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml) in international aid meant for the palestinians, his wife, who lives in Paris!, receives $100,000 a month. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

6) Under 10 peace agreements Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have signed they are obligated to have elections, draft a constitution, stop incitement and arrest terror groups. Since 1993 not one of those obligations has been fulfilled. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

7) From 2000 to 2002 terrorists from Jenin belonging to Al Aksa, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were responsible for 28 suicide bombings. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

8) On March 27, 2002 a palestinian terrorist targetted the Park Hotel in Netanya. 30 people were killed and 140 were wounded, Hamas claimed responsibility. a_u_p's answer?...It's Israel's fault.

After the Park Hotel bombing Israel launched Operation Defensive Sheild which took the IDF into Jenin, the "massacre in Jenin" touted by the Palestinian Authority far and wide was exposed for the hoax it was. examples here (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_Award_for_2002.asp)

[a_unique_person]

I take it, ZN, that you tacitly agree with the point I was making.

[crimresearch]

I'm guessing that none of you took much away from the lesson of the tarbaby.

Paul

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Can you understand the basic principle, Israel should have no say, at all, in the UN investigation. Why should it?

Why shouldn't it?

The problem with the UN is there is no set of guiding principles for it to go by. It’s a relatively new organization with only about 50 years of precedent to go by. In essence, they make it up as they go along because there is no thousand year history of common law to guide it.

But if we take the principles of criminal prosecution and apply it to an international level, western democracies agree that in any investigation, the accused does have rights to protect from malicious prosecution.

In this case, Israel stood accused by its enemies of massacre. The UN puts together a team to investigate, and it was noticed that nobody on that team had military experience, much less experience in terrorism or urban warfare. Instead, the team is made up of people who have expertise in humanitarian relief. A valuable field to be sure, but not one that lends expertise needed to asses this situation.

Why shouldn’t they object to that? It’s reasonable that if you are to be judged, you should be judged by someone qualified.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A good example is the refugee detention centres. They are a disgrace to Australia, and Australia should be held accountable for them. Please, come and investigate and report on them. And if you are not allowed to speak to those in detention, please report that too. These are matters that a free society should not tolerate.


Good example. What if the UN sent a team to investigate the detention centers in Australia? Suppose the team consisted of accountants. Uhm, I don’t know how the refugees are treated, but their books are in great shape. No complaints here.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Why shouldn't it?

The problem with the UN is there is no set of guiding principles for it to go by. It’s a relatively new organization with only about 50 years of precedent to go by. In essence, they make it up as they go along because there is no thousand year history of common law to guide it.



That would have to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of waffle I have ever read here.



But if we take the principles of criminal prosecution and apply it to an international level, western democracies agree that in any investigation, the accused does have rights to protect from malicious prosecution.

In this case, Israel stood accused by its enemies of massacre. The UN puts together a team to investigate, and it was noticed that nobody on that team had military experience, much less experience in terrorism or urban warfare. Instead, the team is made up of people who have expertise in humanitarian relief. A valuable field to be sure, but not one that lends expertise needed to asses this situation.

Why shouldn’t they object to that? It’s reasonable that if you are to be judged, you should be judged by someone qualified.



No, that might be. You prevent people from investigating because you have prejudged their ability to investigate. It is Israel who has found someone guilty without a trial. They should have let them in, and argued their report on the merits. As it is, you want it both ways, because the report just happened to come up with findings you liked, and ZN loves to quote it. I thought these guys were incompetent, you should be disparaging of that report.

Either way, what is wrong with openness? It is the last thing Israel wants.





Good example. What if the UN sent a team to investigate the detention centers in Australia? Suppose the team consisted of accountants. Uhm, I don’t know how the refugees are treated, but their books are in great shape. No complaints here.

They won't be allowed in full stop. The Australian government is doing just what Israel is doing. Obstructing the free flow of information. Denying free speech. Hopefully they will be voted out at the next election. It looks like they will be.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

Lots of organizations appear to have independently concluded that there was no massacre in Jenin.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

Lots of organizations appear to have independently concluded that there was no massacre in Jenin.

Apart from the 50 or so Palestinians who died, I guess not. However, that was not the point of my post.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

Lots of organizations appear to have independently concluded that there was no massacre in Jenin.
Not quite sure who the "lots" of organisations are. The HRW report says there was no "massacre" but I doubt if the israelis want to use this report as an endorsement of thier actions seeing as it accuses them of warcrimes and deliberately killing non combatants.

I don't think there will ever be a single true account, the death toll probably lies somewhere between the Israeli figures and the palestinian figures...most likely somewhere around the HRW figures.
I'm not very impressed with the time article. It appears to be mostly a chronological sequence obtained from Israeli military records and some interviews after the event. Little or no outline of the evidence obtained, mainly just a statement of thier conclusions.

[LTC8K6]

Human Rights Watch, which in a published report last week also concluded that no massacre took place, nonetheless documented 22 civilian deaths and said the Israelis used excessive and indiscriminate force during the operation. Time found that as Israeli soldiers moved from house to house, they sometimes compelled Palestinian civilians to take the dangerous job of leading the approach to the buildings. On the other hand, a senior Palestinian military officer has admitted to Time that some of those who died were killed by rubble from the exploding booby traps with which Palestinian fighters had honeycombed the camp.

[LTC8K6]

No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre," concludes Amnesty's Holley.

[a_unique_person]

Once again, where is the openness, the transparency, the honesty, on the part of Israel. This is a typical example of suppression of information, restriction of access. The UN report says exactly that.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That would have to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of waffle I have ever read here.

Because it doesn’t lead to the solution you want.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, that might be. You prevent people from investigating because you have prejudged their ability to investigate. It is Israel who has found someone guilty without a trial. They should have let them in, and argued their report on the merits. As it is, you want it both ways, because the report just happened to come up with findings you liked, and ZN loves to quote it. I thought these guys were incompetent, you should be disparaging of that report.

Israel didn’t find them guilty, just questioned their qualifications. Do you see the difference? In any case, it was the UN who declined to change the composition of the team.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Either way, what is wrong with openness? It is the last thing Israel wants.
And what was wrong with fairness?

[Skeptic]

I don't think there will ever be a single true account, the death toll probably lies somewhere between the Israeli figures and the palestinian figures...

Not necessarily. If I say you owe me $1,000,000 for no reason whatsoever, and you deny it, does this mean you "probably" owe me about $500,000? No, it just means I'm a liar.

The Palestinian figure is simply a lie, part of their usual atrocity propaganda. For instance, at the time, the Palestinians claimed "israeli tanks ran over a Palestinian baby", but for some reason couldn't provide any photographs, bodies, or for that matter even a name of the alleged victim, which seems never to have existed.

They also claimed israel "completely destroyed" the "northern (or was it western?) wing" of a hospital in Jenin, when in reality aerial photos and engineering permits quickly prove the hospital in question was, first, undamaged by israeli troops, and second, never HAD a "northern wing" in the first place.

It is these types of fables that lead to the "Palestinian figures" of dead in Jenin. To say that the truth "probably" lies somewhere between the two figures is like saying that in truth the tank "probably" merely hurt the invented baby without killing it, or that the israeli troops "probably" merely damaged the non-existant "northern wing" of the hospital instead of totally destroying it.

[Skeptic]

And what was wrong with fairness?

Those evil jews don't DESERVE fairness.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not necessarily. If I say you owe me $1,000,000 for no reason whatsoever, and you deny it, does this mean you "probably" owe me about $500,000? No, it just means I'm a liar.

The Palestinian figure is simply a lie, part of their usual atrocity propaganda. For instance, at the time, the Palestinians claimed "israeli tanks ran over a Palestinian baby", but for some reason couldn't provide any photographs, bodies, or for that matter even a name of the alleged victim, which seems never to have existed.


And that's really how propaganda is effective. Among people who are honest and fair, is a basic assumption that other people are also honest and fair. It’s easy to assume that there is “some” truth to any given allegation, even if it’s obviously untrue as a whole, so lacking specific knowledge of specifics is a tendency to assume a middle ground even without any specific evidence to justify it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mycroft


And that's really how propaganda is effective. Among people who are honest and fair, is a basic assumption that other people are also honest and fair. It’s easy to assume that there is “some” truth to any given allegation, even if it’s obviously untrue as a whole, so lacking specific knowledge of specifics is a tendency to assume a middle ground even without any specific evidence to justify it.
Speak English?

Ask me for help with English regarding:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mycroft]

Help me out Ion, what are you quoting?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mycroft
And that's really how propaganda is effective. Among people who are honest and fair, is a basic assumption that other people are also honest and fair.

Gah!

I'm honest to a fault. Whether I'm fair or not depends on whom you ask. A lot of people think I'm unfair, but I think they're all scumbags, so it's even.

Propaganda works because it has a little hook in it. It appeals to things that people like but are not honest enough to admit to.

An awful lot of human activity consists of slathering layers of justification over venial desires. For example, people whack off to dirty pictures, but they don't like to admit it, so they call it "Erotic Art" or some such nonsense.

Propaganda appeals to secret beliefs, thoughts, and desires, and provides a justification. It provides a nice myth that makes all the petty little hatreds and lusts seem noble somehow.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083103586527.html

Look at this. The US has freedom of speech. Show me where Israel has this capacity for self criticism and transparency. As much as the US has it's faults, at least it has the ability to have then reported. I see little evidence that Israel has these important facilities at all.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US has freedom of speech. Show me where Israel has this capacity for self criticism and transparency. As much as the US has it's faults, at least it has the ability to have then reported. I see little evidence that Israel has these important facilities at all. Yet another lie from the known liar at JREF.

Israeli newpapers; Ariga, Arutz Sheva, B'Tselem, Business Arena, Challenge, Gamla, Ha'aretz, Hello Israel Magazine, Israel Insider, IsraNews, Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem Report, Jewish World Review, Maariv, Palestine-Israel Journal, The Source, YeshaNews, plus every other international magazine you can think of, Time, People, The Economist.

Television in Israel: HBO, CNN, BBC, Cartoon Network, there are two competing Israeli channels and 40 channels in more than a dozen languages...and if you own a satellite dish even more.

Internet in Israel: Free to anyone with a computer and an ISP.


Yup, those evil jooooooze keep a tight lid on all freedom of speech, self criticism and transparency.....

[Skeptic]

The US has freedom of speech. Show me where Israel has this capacity for self criticism and transparency.

www.haaretzdaily.com
www.jpost.com
www.jrep.com
www.maariv.co.il (in Hebrew)
www.ynet.co.il (in Hebrew)
www.israelnationalnews.org
www.galatz.org

(I might be wrong on the exact web sites, I'm quoting from memory--try replacing the ending with ".com" or ".co.il" or ".org" if it doesn't work)

etc., etc., etc.

All of these papers--and these are just some of the big ones online--are very often critical of the government, the army, israel, and you name it.

In addition, israel has more political parties--each one hating the other's guts, of course, and thinking everything the government does is wrong--than any other nation on earth.

In addition to four or five daily newspapers and numerous magazines, you can also get in israel virtually every major European or American magazine (or paper) you want, in any large book or magazine store.

In addition, you can get cable TV with dozens of channels, none censored--the same channels they get in Europe, and in particular CNN, the BBC, Sky news, etc., etc., etc.--many of them critical of israel as a habit.

Finally, heard of this thing called the internet? Well, you can get online in israel with a variety of ISPs, none of them censoring any content whatsoever. In fact, israelies as a group as just about the most "online" people on earth (except perhaps for Americans).

Yup, that's horrible, HORRIBLE censorship israel has... why, it's so lacking in self-criticism you can sometimes watch the news for a whole FIVE MINUTES without hearing why the prime minister and/or government and/or currently-ruling party and/or the army are idiots.

Especially comapred to, say, Syria, where the two official newspapers and one official TV channel tell the truth so objectively and with such self-criticism and openess, they don't NEED the stupid internet, which is why it's banned...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Yet another lie from the known liar at JREF.

Israeli newpapers; Ariga, Arutz Sheva, B'Tselem, Business Arena, Challenge, Gamla, Ha'aretz, Hello Israel Magazine, Israel Insider, IsraNews, Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem Report, Jewish World Review, Maariv, Palestine-Israel Journal, The Source, YeshaNews, plus every other international magazine you can think of, Time, People, The Economist.

Television in Israel: HBO, CNN, BBC, Cartoon Network, there are two competing Israeli channels and 40 channels in more than a dozen languages...and if you own a satellite dish even more.

Internet in Israel: Free to anyone with a computer and an ISP.


Yup, those evil jooooooze keep a tight lid on all freedom of speech, self criticism and transparency.....

I said self criticism and transparency. The IDF invariably finds that nothing wrong ever happened, in the case of the US and the torture and humiliation of prisoners, the US armed forces are disowning those who did it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I said self criticism and transparency. The IDF invariably finds that nothing wrong ever happened, in the case of the US and the torture and humiliation of prisoners, the US armed forces are disowning those who did it.

Which is of course, wrong. The IDF does investigate and does sometimes find that its own has done somethign wrong and takes appropriate action. You just don't read the sources where it might be reported.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Which is of course, wrong. The IDF does investigate and does sometimes find that its own has done somethign wrong and takes appropriate action. You just don't read the sources where it might be reported.

I have read cases where it is pretty clear to me that the IDF was in the wrong. The reasons they were right seem to come down to Venus shining off marsh gases when a weather balloon was floating by.

[Skeptic]

I have read cases where it is pretty clear to me that the IDF was in the wrong.

Of course you do; the problem is, you never, ever, read of any case when the IDF seems to be in the right.

You see, "Eletrconic Intifada" and the other "objective sources" you read to find out "the truth about the middle east" don't allow that sort of "zionist propaganda" within their pages, as a matter of policy.

After all, portraying israelies as anything but deranged monsters might make the reader doubt the gospel truth that it's all the evil jews' fault, and "Electronic Intifada" & co. can't allow that under any circumstances.

Jeez, why don't you just read the old Soviet Pravda or the Volkeischer Beobachter and be done with it?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Help me out Ion, what are you quoting?
Kofi Annan, The UN Secretary General, on the lack of co operation by Israel in the investigation about the Jenin massacre.

It says right there, in English.

Glad to help you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I have read cases where it is pretty clear to me that the IDF was in the wrong.

Of course you do; the problem is, you never, ever, read of any case when the IDF seems to be in the right.

You see, "Eletrconic Intifada" and the other "objective sources" you read to find out "the truth about the middle east" don't allow that sort of "zionist propaganda" within their pages, as a matter of policy.

After all, portraying israelies as anything but deranged monsters might make the reader doubt the gospel truth that it's all the evil jews' fault, and "Electronic Intifada" & co. can't allow that under any circumstances.

Jeez, why don't you just read the old Soviet Pravda or the Volkeischer Beobachter and be done with it?

"Israeli" is a pretty broad range of individuals. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many Israelis don't like what is being done in their name. Only, it turns out, these Israelis are not real Jews. The more time goes by, the more names are added to the list of Israelis who are not "Real Jews". Hence, any time I criticise the actions of Israel the State, I am slandering all 'joooze'.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"Israeli" is a pretty broad range of individuals. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many Israelis don't like what is being done in their name. Only, it turns out, these Israelis are not real Jews. The more time goes by, the more names are added to the list of Israelis who are not "Real Jews". Hence, any time I criticise the actions of Israel the State, I am slandering all 'joooze'.

How come you keep hammering this straw man? Do you think nobody will notice that the only one who says "real Jews" is you?

[Skeptic]

"Israeli" is a pretty broad range of individuals. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many Israelis don't like what is being done in their name.

That doesn't really answer the question, does it? My complaint is that all your "objective media sources" are completely bashing israel and/or jews (or as you call them, "zionists": rememeber your claim that it's a "fact" that the "zionists" control the American media?). Your reply is that some of your israel-bashing sources are israelies and/or jews themselves.

Well, so what? That's not what I'm complaining about. I'm not complaining that your sources don't include jews or israelies; I'm complaining that your sources' claims are always anti-israeli; they only include jews or israelies who are willing to denounce and criticize their country in a vicious manner.

To give a (rather apt) analogy, suppose I told someone that the KKK's newsletter he reads for information about "the truth" about race relations is biased, as all it does is bash blacks. Suppose he replied that that's not fair: some of the writers in the KKK newletter are, in fact, "honest negroes" themselves, who agree that they are inferior and should be treated as second-rate citizens. But that's irrelevant: the reason the KKK newspaper is biased is that it's 100% anti-black in its opinions, not that the staff is 100% white.

So, to repeat: say some of those who bash israel in your "objective sources" are israelies. So what? The problem is that your sources are 100% anti-israeli, not that their staff is 100% gentile. Does the fact that your "objective sources" NEVER say ANYTHING positive about israel tell you something? Or is that merely "proof" how awful israel "objectively" is, in your view?

P.S.

Please, AUP, don't try and lecture me of all people, on what what israelies are like or what they "really" think.

Let me put it very simply so you can understand: the "many israelies" which the "objective" sources you read claim agree with them are a tiny, loony minority, about the equivalent of (more or less) the "international socialist organization" or the "American Communist Party" in the USA in terms of their popularity.

Not that you could tell that from the headlines of "popular socialst upheaval against the racist Sharon" (or the equivalent) in your "objective" sources. But that merely proves your "objective" sources have little to do with reality and everything to do with jew-baiting--which, of course, is why you're so attracted to them in the first place.

[The Fool]

Ok guys...whatever you say.... The Israeli figures are never wrong. How does the chant go? Sharon speaks I believe?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by The Fool
Ok guys...whatever you say.... The Israeli figures are never wrong. How does the chant go? Sharon speaks I believe?

I think that's a bit unfair. Why the false dilemma of "believe electronic intifada or believe Sharon, but believe one of them unconditionally"?

When Skeptic, ZN, Mycroft, etc. start pulling "evidence" from places like crushpalestine.com or killthefilthyarabs.com, then they will be on par with the credulity of AUP and the credbility of his sources. I think your attention would be better spent on helping AUP out of his rut.

Of course I realize that doubting a site like electronic intifada automatically makes me a ravening bigot in your book, so just shoot your load and get it over with.

[am7a]

originally posted by skeptic
Well, so what? That's not what I'm complaining about. I'm not complaining that your sources don't include jews or israelies; I'm complaining that your sources' claims are always anti-israeli; they only include jews or israelies who are willing to denounce and criticize their country in a vicious manner.

are you claiming that there are jews in israel who are ant-israeli, why do they live there then?what makes them leave their homes and risk their lives to live in israel?

a good example of how you discribe these people is when bush said that if you don't support america's war on terror then you are a terrorist, so if there are americans who oppose the war in iraq, they should be labled as terrorists. I'm not claiming this is true but its a similar the example of yours, whoever don't agree with sharon policy or their soldiers behavior such as the jew who took the picture of the palestinian boy tied to the vihicle then his attitudes are vicious (anti-israeli.

[Skeptic]

are you claiming that there are jews in israel who are ant-israeli

Nope, I'm claiming that the israelies or jews quoted by "electronic intifada" & co. -- a tiny minority -- are anti-israeli, which, of course, is the sole reason "electronic intifada" and AUP's other "objective" sources quote them in the first place (and then lie and pretend that they are in some way representatives of the israelies, or are some sort of "backlash to the evil Sharon policies", or whatever).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think that's a bit unfair. Why the false dilemma of "believe electronic intifada or believe Sharon, but believe one of them unconditionally"?

False dilema? maybe you can see it....maybe you could point out where I suggested this? Then we could work through your misunderstanding at a suitable pace. I believe my suggestion was that the truth lies somewhere between the lies of the Israeli government and the lies of the PA. I think the PA lies for propaganda purposes...hands up all zionists who think the Israeli claims are the same?


Of course I realize that doubting a site like electronic intifada automatically makes me a ravening bigot in your book, so just shoot your load and get it over with.
need more straw?

[epepke]

Originally posted by am7a

are you claiming that there are jews in israel who are ant-israeli, why do they live there then?

So much for Noam Chomsky.

[Skeptic]

I said self criticism and transparency. The IDF invariably finds that nothing wrong ever happened,

Utter nonsense.

The IDF comptroller (sp?), legal division, public complaints officers, criminal investigators, field commanders, military police, etc., etc., etc. OFTEN find that soldiers behaved wrongly and, on some occassions, even criminally, in dealing with Palestinians, and prosecutes and punishes them accordingly.

But, needless to say, "electronic intifada" and other such "objective" sources never report THAT, so as far as AUP is concerned, it didn't happen.

[Skeptic]

Remember this issue? Well, as the "Jewish Week" reported this week, the kid was NOT used as a "human shield".

In reality, the photograph was carefully cropped to obscured the fact that the jeep on which he was, at the time, already INSIDE a military base, and not facing any protestors or attack, so there was nobody to use him as a "shield". The kid was picked up by the soldiers in a protest, was driven to the military base INSIDE the jeep, not on it, and was tied to it by the understaffed border policemen only when they LEFT THE VECHILE IN THE BASE, to keep him from wandering off.

I, of course, am quite sure that "The Fool", "A Unique Person", etc., who went ballistic over the "human shield", will now issue an apology. It's not like they'll believe silly lies just because they make israel and the jews look bad, now would they?

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Remember this issue? Well, as the "Jewish Week" reported this week, the kid was NOT used as a "human shield".

In reality, the photograph was carefully cropped to obscured the fact that the jeep on which he was, at the time, already INSIDE a military base, and not facing any protestors or attack, so there was nobody to use him as a "shield". The kid was picked up by the soldiers in a protest, was driven to the military base INSIDE the jeep, not on it, and was tied to it by the understaffed border policemen only when they LEFT THE VECHILE IN THE BASE, to keep him from wandering off.

I, of course, am quite sure that "The Fool", "A Unique Person", etc., who went ballistic over the "human shield", will now issue an apology. It's not like they'll believe silly lies just because they make israel and the jews look bad, now would they?

Good - show us the link or whole photo then please.

Thanks.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime


Good - show us the link or whole photo then please.

Thanks.

No?

[a_unique_person]

I'll take his word for it, though I do wonder why photographers are allowed to wander around at will inside Israeli military bases.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I'll take his word for it, though I do wonder why photographers are allowed to wander around at will inside Israeli military bases.

Aww..it had to happen. Getting involved in one of these threads.

A photographer inside inside a military base? Hmm....

Also, how do you explain the rabbi getting a hiding then?

So rabbi's and journalists are just allowed to mince about inside an Israeli military base?

Doesn't ring true to me. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise - hence previous post.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime


No?

Buy last week's JEWISH WEEK; the two-column article, including a photograph, is there, of course complete with sources. It is not online so far as I know.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I'll take his word for it, though I do wonder why photographers are allowed to wander around at will inside Israeli military bases.

Bash 'em for not being open enough to the press, then bash 'em for being too open. What's a Jew gotta do to get approval?

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Buy last week's JEWISH WEEK; the two-column article, including a photograph, is there, of course complete with sources. It is not online so far as I know.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9491&offset=0&B1=1&author=Liat%20Bachura&issuedates=&month=06&day=04&year=2004&issuedate=20031206&keyword=human%20shield

Unfortunately it shows exactly the same picture.

Taken from the article:


"The host of the London-based radio news program, commenting on a photo in the news that day of a Palestinian boy handcuffed to the windshield of an Israeli military jeep, said the boy was being used as a human shield. He noted that it was the kind of photo that symbolized the conflict for him. "

OK.

"But David Zeev Harris, an Israeli journalist and guest on the program, pointed out that the photo had been closely cropped so one could not tell that the jeep was facing away from the protestors. He added that, according to Israeli authorities, the boy had been throwing stones and had moved from a protest area to a closed military zone. To protect him while awaiting backup, the understaffed military unit had handcuffed him to the vehicle. "

Closely cropped? According to who? His opinion? Like I said - the article shows the same picture.

"One could not tell"??

"Israeli authorities say blah blah blah"

The boy was *handcuffed* to the vehicle???????

???????????????????????????????????????

Has this guy *actually* seen the picture?


http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/23/kidonbonnett,0.jpg



Hmmm.....and it's taken six weeks for the article to come out

Well, that's me convinced....I don't think the guy is either. And he avoids mentioning the Rabbi that was beaten up.

So, one "I've no agenda really" man's opinion sways yours.

This is what sways mine:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palestinian+boy+human+shield&btnG=Google+Search

I think you're clutching at straws.

=============================

Interesting to also note that I bothered to make the effort to find the article in question when you didn't.

If you can't access the page - you need a password - pm me for it. Ta.

[Skeptic]

Unfortunately it shows exactly the same picture.

(Shrug)

In today's NY Times, there is a picture of Ronald Reagen making a speech, very much alive. Above it is the caption that Reagen is dead at 93. It does not show a picture of Reagan's dead body. Does this mean the NY Times photo is lying? No, it means that the article is ABOUT Reagen, and the photograph illustrates it.

Similarly, in the "Jewish Week"'s case, the article is ABOUT a photograph that was published all over the world. It therefore has, unsurpriringly, the original photograph, the one published all over the world, accompanying the article.

You seem to think that this is a "coverup" and that unless they show a non-cropped photo they are lying. Well, no. The Jewish Week naturally will not have access to the uncropped photograph, since it belongs to the person who took it and was not released. But they DO have access to the published, cropped, photograph, and the article is about the discovery, through journalistic investigation, that this photograph had been manipulated; so they used the original photograph in an article following up on it.

So?

"But David Zeev Harris, an Israeli journalist and guest on the program, pointed out that the photo had been closely cropped so one could not tell that the jeep was facing away from the protestors. He added that, according to Israeli authorities, the boy had been throwing stones and had moved from a protest area to a closed military zone. To protect him while awaiting backup, the understaffed military unit had handcuffed him to the vehicle. "

Closely cropped? According to who? His opinion?

Yes, in his opinion--as an investigative journalist whose job is to find out the truth behind the oft-distorted reports of the foreign media. As part of his work for www.themedialine.org , an organization dedicated to setting the record straight. In this case, it is clear from the article that Harris spent a considerable amount of time investigating the incident (interviewing officials, etc.).

Apparently one of his conclusions is that the photo was cropped. It's an informed opinion. The article doesn't say how he reached the conclusion; perhaps he saw other photos taken at the same time, or the original photo, or had photographic experts take a look at it and note that it was cropped. But it is clear from the article that this conclusion is hardly "some guy's opinion", but rather, the result of an investigation.

"Israeli authorities say blah blah blah"

Yes, they do. Of course, you immediatelly dismiss that, don't you? Like with the witch trials, for you to believe the worst about israel, it's enough for someone to accuse it. That alone is evidence for guilt and israel must now disprove it. If israel ignores the accusation, then of course that is further "proof" of guilt. But when israel replies to it, officially at that, you simply refuse to listen, automatically assuming--with not a shred of evidence--that israeli denial are simply lies, "blah blah blah".

The boy was *handcuffed* to the vehicle???????

Yes. The black "thing" above his left arm. It's a type of one-use plastic handcuffs, issued in black to the IDF, not the US police-style shiny "cuffs" which are intended to tie two wrists together.

Hmmm.....and it's taken six weeks for the article to come out

Yes, that is highly suspicious. It couldn't possible be that they actually did a thorough investigation and that took time... they just needed six weeks to come up with a good cover story for the conspiracy!

Oh, wait. If israeli response had taken, say, two days, then the fact that the article came out after only two days would also be proof of israeli "lies"--after all, such a quick response proves israel has stock propaganda answers to all accusations; if they had done a real investigation, it would have taken time--six weeks or so at least, don't you think?

(Damned if you do, damned if you don't...)

And he avoids mentioning the Rabbi that was beaten up.

He also avoids mentioning president Clinton, UFOs, and the hollow earth. That is proof positive Clinton is an alien from the holow earth who flies israeli UFOs there. Did israel ever deny this?

No?

So there!

[charley_bigtime]

In today's NY Times, there is a picture of Ronald Reagen making a speech, very much alive. Above it is the caption that Reagen is dead at 93. It does not show a picture of Reagan's dead body. Does this mean the NY Times photo is lying? No, it means that the article is ABOUT Reagen, and the photograph illustrates it.

Pathetic and irrelevant. If this guy is an investigative journalist then surely he has evidence that the picture is cropped? I can't see it.

You seem to think that this is a "coverup" and that unless they show a non-cropped photo they are lying. Well, no. The Jewish Week naturally will not have access to the uncropped photograph, since it belongs to the person who took it and was not released. But they DO have access to the published, cropped, photograph, and the article is about the discovery, through journalistic investigation, that this photograph had been manipulated; so they used the original photograph in an article following up on it.

So what has this investigation turned up? Please forward this evidence of manipulation to set my mind at rest instead of taking someones word for it. Thanks.

In this case, it is clear from the article that Harris spent a considerable amount of time investigating the incident (interviewing officials, etc.).

No it isn't clear in the slightest. He just says the photo is cropped and that "authorities " say this and that. I can find news links where Israeli authorities say exactly the same thing and I can just as easily make the same *claims* about the picture. Anyone can - it proves nothing and adds no credibilty to his statements.

Yes, they do. Of course, you immediatelly dismiss that, don't you? Like with the witch trials, for you to believe the worst about israel, it's enough for someone to accuse it. That alone is evidence for guilt and israel must now disprove it. If israel ignores the accusation, then of course that is further "proof" of guilt. But when israel replies to it, officially at that, you simply refuse to listen, automatically assuming--with not a shred of evidence--that israeli denial are simply lies, "blah blah blah".

I've not refused to listen and I have dismissed nothing- I've asked for the evidence (which you didn't post) and what evidence there is I have analysed. Post yours and I will do the same. If you can.

Yes. The black "thing" above his left arm. It's a type of one-use plastic handcuffs, issued in black to the IDF, not the US police-style shiny "cuffs" which are intended to tie two wrists together.

Handuffs?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39201&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Funny - you say here he was *tied.* (3/4 way down)

Oh, wait. If israeli response had taken, say, two days, then the fact that the article came out after only two days would also be proof of israeli "lies"--after all, such a quick response proves israel has stock propaganda answers to all accusations; if they had done a real investigation, it would have taken time--six weeks or so at least, don't you think?

How long does it take to decide that a photo is cropped and read some news links?

He also avoids mentioning president Clinton, UFOs, and the hollow earth. That is proof positive Clinton is an alien from the holow earth who flies israeli UFOs there. Did israel ever deny this?

Where am I condemning Israel or are you jumping to a false conclusion based on your paranoia regarding anyone who is even the slightest bit critical of *one* incident where Irsael appear to be at fault?

Btw - the Rabbi bit was the nail in your coffin wasn't it? You even probably thought you were home free didn't you? I guess that's why you have to bring up the hatstand in the last paragraph in order to evade the point.

[demon]

Palestinians and self hating Rabbis.....just can`t trust them for anything.
Far better to rely upon Israeli authorities and the IDF for the truth. They have an exemplary record.

Hey skeptic, I heard something on the news yesterday about some guy in America going crazy in a bulldozer he had rigged up with armour plating or something...wasn`t you by any chance?

[a_unique_person]

That link http://www.themedialine.org/ explains a lot.

Here is a quote

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
Palestinians and self hating Rabbis.....just can`t trust them for anything.

How come the only time I ever see the term "self-hating" it's from you?

Originally posted by demon
Far better to rely upon Israeli authorities and the IDF for the truth. They have an exemplary record.

Yup. I'd rate their accuracy as about the same as any other democratic government source.

Which does place it head and shoulders above PA propaganda and NGOs that have chosen to push a political agenda over the truth.

Originally posted by demon Hey skeptic, I heard something on the news yesterday about some guy in America going crazy in a bulldozer he had rigged up with armour plating or something...wasn`t you by any chance?

When you lose on the facts, jump to an ad hom.

[demon]

"When you lose on the facts"...just what "facts" are we talking about here? The claptrap from "Israeli authorities" and the "IDF"?
Do me a favour!

Show me the facts of the case if you have them.

As for "self-hating"..yes I use it, it`s the right term isn`t it? For jews who criticise Israel? Call a spade a spade Mycroft, It won`t kill you you know. You could start with our old friend ersatz Israel, why don`t you call that for what it is?

As for the ad hom against Skeptic, it`s a wonder you even noticed it...the forum is fairly dripping with his...have you mentioned his ad homs to him or his penchant for inventing quotes by other posters and myself?
When you do I might take you more seriously, until then save your breath and I won`t be holding mine.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
As for "self-hating"..yes I use it, it`s the right term isn`t it? For jews who criticise Israel? Call a spade a spade Mycroft, It won`t kill you you know. You could start with our old friend ersatz Israel, why don`t you call that for what it is?


Every ethnic group has its share of "self-haters".

The term is not ersats Israel but Eretz Israel.

[a_unique_person]

The ersatz appears to be a play on words.

[demon]

"The ersatz appears to be a play on words."

At least someone is on the ball.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by demon
"The ersatz appears to be a play on words."

At least someone is on the ball.

So, you consider israel an "ersatz", artificial country which should be destroyed... and yet you whine and moan about israel "disrespect" of Palestinian rights? As a would-be supporter of genocide of the jews, you hardly are in a position to make moral demands of your would-be victims.

[crimresearch]

">>Yes. The black "thing" above his left arm. It's a type of one->>use plastic handcuffs, issued in black to the IDF, not the US >>police-style shiny "cuffs" which are intended to tie two wrists >>together. "
"Handuffs?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...40&pagenumber=1
Funny - you say here he was *tied.* (3/4 way down)"


Well Skeptic, I think CBT has you dead to rights on that one.
You clearly refer to the zip tie cuffs in one post as 'cuffs', and then in another post you are caught dead to rights using the word 'tie' to refer to the zip tie cuffs.

Since everyone knows that zip tie cuffs cannot possibly perform 2 entirely opposite actions such as tying and cuffing, it is time for you to come clean, and admit that everything you have ever posted has been a similar prevarication.


:dl: