Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Sirotnikov]

Gnu -

You constantly demand me to bring proof for my claims, with hardly ever proving your claims.

Almost all the claims you made to date are based on your own logic and lack of other information.

When I informed you of events when terrorists infiltrated houses you 'assumed' (without any reason for doing so) that they generally targetted the house, and didn't target kids.

When you make all sorts of sarcastic comments about Sharon and his intentions, you never bring a quote of him or any other source proving them.

Almost all of your arguements are based on some petty irrelevant examples like the smurf encyclopedia, or your own logic, which is quite twisted given according to it, every palestinian has the right to kill every jew living in Israel or the occupied territories with a rusty nail.

You quoted the EB once. You quoted the washington report once.

That's about all your sources.

Oh, and ofcourse you have a friend that once told you that some of the German newspapers are jewish, thus you immediatelly decided that Die Ziet is jewish and thus will lie and invent facts for Israel (why? because of it's target audience - the evil zionistic jews)

Funny you yourself claim that one can't rely on target audiences.

[CyberGnu]

So basically after much wordplay, you agree that the IAEA is not as reliable and exact as an intelligence agency, because it has a smaller mandate.

This means, that while the IAEA is nice to have, the only people who can get credible and relaible and otherwise unattainable information - are the intelligence agencies, you so vehemently fight against.

you have an interesting logic: So Jimmy Carters declaration of the palestinian election as fair and democratic is unreliable, because ANOTHER UN agency cannot perform a task it is neither mandated nor designed to perform?

Wow. You often leave me stunned, but this one was good.

[Sirotnikov]

Well, I certainly hope so, since a newspaper actually isn't a primary source. Official state documents are, but you need to verify it's veracity, which is best done by referring to a official goverment website or a published scholarly work.

newspapers are a primary source when reporting about events that took place that the reporter wittnessed.

If the reporter quotes the police, then it's a secondary source for the info we get from that section.



As far as the discussions we had - I keep returning to them because they are still relevant.

My "sources" are newspapers. You've chosen to believe all of the israeli newspapers are based on some intelligence reports - fine.

The NYT which I quoted earlier also based itself on intelligence reports. I've also often quoted NYT articles based on Israeli intelligence reports.

I think you should start doubting NYT as much as you doubt the Israeli media. As far as you know - it might say the truth once, but lie another time. So very true.

[Sirotnikov]

you have an interesting logic: So Jimmy Carters declaration of the palestinian election as fair and democratic is unreliable, because ANOTHER UN agency cannot perform a task it is neither mandated nor designed to perform?

Wow. You often leave me stunned, but this one was good.

Oh please.

If you are so confused and can't argue about two points at once (the reliability of jimmy carter and his naivity / the reliability and effectiveness of IAEA) I think you should return to grammar school.

[Sirotnikov]

I didn't say you should. I said I assumed they were true.

Tell me gnu, do you first assume that what you are claiming is right, and then use it to prove your point, or do you do it regardlessly?

[CyberGnu]

You're again being a nudnik.

Just because you fail to follow world news, doesn't mean that when arguing with you I'm going to do what you don't and constantly be busy bringing sources, while you constantly rely on your ignorance as a shield.

Ohh, another good one!!

After a while I may decide you just don't have enough knowledgebase and awareness of world events for me to have a conversation with you.

Well, poor old me. I don't read enough Jerusalem Post to fulfill your standards? I'm going to cry myself to sleep over this one.

As for jimi carter, he was and is a naive peacenik who always liked appeasing dictators instead of fighting them. IIRC he was the first person to speak to the PLO, when Arafat was a self-proclaimed "general" and dictator.

again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it.

The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

If you want to learn more - either research yourself, or ask straybow. He seems to be supportive of my judgement.

Why? You tried to refute my (sourced) claim with an unsubstantiated smear on the reliability of the observers. You only have two mature choices: To either back up your claim, or to retract.

[CyberGnu]

BTW, you might want to rethink using the Washington Times as a source all together. It is on the same level as newsmax, roughly.

[Sirotnikov]

again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it.

The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

]

Why? You tried to refute my (sourced) claim with an unsubstantiated smear on the reliability of the observers. You only have two mature choices: To either back up your claim, or to retract.

I'm casting doubt on the reliability of jimmy carter. According to what I posted, he's as naive as a little girl you can take candy from.

again, specifics? In the quote you posted above, could you provide the actual link, or the date it was printed? I searched for it on www.washtimes.com, but couldn;t find it.

Awww, I sent little gnu to do some field work and he didn't like it.

Not surpring - he demands me to go out and find Kroeze's anti-semitic books in some israeli library, and then answer his silly claims. But for a gnu to use google? That's asking too much.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-200251503154.htm

The main reason I ask is becuase it doesn't appear to be a news piece, but an editorial.

How is that relevant?

Do you assume that the writer invented facts as he went along? If so -back this up.

If not - then deal with the facts.

What you are doing is evading. Remember? That's what you accused me with.

[Sirotnikov]

BTW, you might want to rethink using the Washington Times as a source all together. It is on the same level as newsmax, roughly.

Really?

Gnu assumes it's unreliable?

why does gnu assume it's unreliable , when gnu just recently assumed that Kroeze's articles quoted from books published on a communist anti-semitic site are reliable?


I would think you would actually go and check the author's background, his knowing in politics etc.

Maybe you could find a single fact that he lied about.

But instead, you choose to... evade.

[Edan]

Gnu, how about your post:

Aaaaah, isn't that cute? Taking a leaf from Siros old book, I see? Since what I post doesn't agree with your world view, it must obviously be taken from a anti-semitic propaganda site?

I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE reference to an anti-semitic site. I don't read that drivel. Why would I? That would make me no better than the average pro-israeli.

What I DO reference are REAL sources. Newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Sometimes books, if they are written by reputable historians. I leave that part to Kreuze, though, since he is a better historian than I am. The UN website has plenty of good information. And, naturally, the EB, a most excellent source of information, although sometimes to shallow.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69118&perpage=20&pagenumber=21

So a better historian uses drivel?

[CyberGnu]

The purpose of an intelligence agency is to provide as much as possible accurate and reliable information to the government at any cost.

Partly. But your answer is a good start. As you might see, there was no mention of "keeping the public informed" in there.

Furthermore, from the CIA webpage:
Providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics.

Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security, as directed by the President.


as you can see, there is nothing here either about "providing information to the public". Nor is there anything that requires them to tell the truth. The only directive of relevance here is the very last one: national security.

The purpose of the intelligence agency is to safeguard national security, in whatever way they think is best, working under the goverments directives. Consequently, lying to the press, lying to the public, inventing stories etc etc is all acceptable, as long as the goverment is being informed.

Consequently, using an intelligence agency as any kind of source is pointless: If it believes that the nation would be helped by lying, they would.

The purpose of a newspaper is to provide relatively accurate and relaible information to it's readers, in a way that is profitable.

Exactly. Now, while some newspaper have the philosophy that if they are always truthful (to the best of their ability) about everything, that will attract the most readers. This is normally true. Examples would be the NYT or WP. Others believe that by angling their news and commentaries to a specific group, they will attract more readers from that group. This is, sadly, also normally true. Examples of this would be the JP or New York Post. Obviously, news papers from the second group can not be relied on.

In any case - there is no significant difference. As far as I can tell - the NYT is unreliable, because as you said - just because they publish truthfull articles, doesn't mean that all thier articles are truthfull.

No, but we can expect that if they are not, it is not because the NYT has deliberately tried to manipulate the news. This is as far as I know the best we can ever hope for.

[CyberGnu]

Edan, :

In the quote, maybe not (though if he was typing it instead of copying and pasting it, I might expect the occasional typo, but even so, the bibliographies are perhaps more instructive. They are exactly the same, down to each character. He uses the same abreviations as on the website. There is no publisher for any of the books, and no date listed with one source, just like the website. Do you really expect one to believe it's all just a crazy cosmic coincidence?

...

Well, thats what he claimed.

I don't think we can get much further on this issue without hearing from Kroeze. should we postpone it?

And using that logic, I could (and should) believe everything I read on the internet - I know I don't, I hope you don't.

No, because internet is not a primary source. (Well, there are a few journals that now only publish online, but these are exceptions).

And apparently you do.

Well, I don't have a reason not to, so why should I?

Should I point you to oa website claiming Santa Clause exists?

Hey, as long as the website quotes a primary source, I'll give it some consideration

[CyberGnu]

Israel supporters aren't all Jews and evangelical christians. Soviet influence in the ME is nonexistent, so that reason is out. The three reasons you've listed that you believe in can't explain the millions of non-evangelical christians who support Israel.

Because of the memory of the holocaust, perhaps? Are you confusing the chicken with the egg?

Sleep well.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Do you have an issue with that?

It's called democracy. Why would anyone have a problem with it? Do you have an issue with Mexican Americans pushing for a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants from thier country of origin? Were you up in arms when Arab-Americans convinced Candidate Bush to come out during the campaign against ethnic profiling in airport security?

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

And if the Papa Smurfs book doesn't exist, and since I can't prove it doesn't exist without examining every book on the face of this earth, should I assume the statement is true?

Every book that is published exists in the Library of Congress. If you can;t find it there, you can assume that it doesn't exist.