Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[CyberGnu]

Dino: I don't understand you... Maybe you didn't understand me? I wasn;t trying to be confrontational, I merely wondered whether he didn't agree with the factual content of that statement.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan, :

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

Well, given that he simply left when I brought it up, I don't see that happening...

[DinoDoc]

BTW: Can you people drop the hand bag fight over the quality of the others sources? It really isn't relevent (If your opponent's points are truely bollocks, refuting him/her should be easy without getting bogged down in minute details.) because we aren't writing a research paper and it bores the hell out of people like me who would like to read this thread.

[CyberGnu]

siro:

Gnu - the fact that S Kroeze keeps quoting ready to copy and paste texts from anti-semitic sites doesn't make him look good. And it doesn't make you look good when defending him.

If you want to go ahead and play ignorant as to how that's true, go ahead.

If you or Kroeze had any idea in critical reading - you'd know that each book has a target audience. Furthermore, it has a circle of acceptance.

If one quotes all the books that share a single circle of acceptance and a single target audience - that makes it very plausible that he shares the same views.

If S Kroeze quotes tons of sources which are quoted by anti-semitic writers, and use the same arguements, one would reasonably assume that S Kroeze's thought is close to that of an anti-semite.

Actually, one cannot reasonably assume any such thing. Only by Kroeze's actions and statements can you base your opinion. That other sources, who happen to be anti-semitic, quotes the same sources proves absolutely nothing. Diddly/squat. Nada.

You for instance, refuse to accept my sources, not becaue you know anything about them, but because you assume that since their target audience is Israeli, and they contain facts that you aren't aware of - they must be wrong.

The media of any part in a conflict, I will assume is biased. History shows that this is always true, no matter how good the media normally is. You can simply look at the US medias treatment of the war in Iraq for a good confirmaion of that.

your gnu example is nice - but irrelevant, since history analisys is not exact science. Whether gnu's have legs or not can be verified. Whether all zionists are anti-semitic or not, can not be reasonably verified.

So? This is not about gnus. This is about the treatment if information and debate.

Furthermore, you have no way of knowing that S Kroeze didn't change the original writing of the books "he" supposedly quotes (or mis-quotes).

Exactly. Which is why you should check his source if you have doubts about the veracity of his statement. But the instinctive screaming of how the sources are crap is useless unless you actually back it up.

An Israeli historian has proved for instance, that alot of pro-palestinian israeli historians have infact distorted quotes, and using their pre-face and explanations of them, together with changing the wording and omitting parts, completely changed their meaning to their liking.

Well, if Kroeze ever quotes one of those historians, you should counter with a relevant publication by the historian you mention.

You realize, of course, that this ONLY applies to the historians mentioned, and that it is contingent on whether the first one is right or not.

[CyberGnu]

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.

Ask, and thou shalt recieve. It is not my fault if you never ask for a source. I have yet to deny you either a source or a retraction.

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.

So? This is not something that requires a source, I never claim it to be a fact. It's a plausible assumption.

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.

Not sure if you knew this, but the world seldom works like in the movies. Real life villains seldom declare their evil intentions to the world - you have to infer from their actions or lack thereof.

[CyberGnu]

Seriously, you really don't understand the difference between a claim and a logical conclusion?

Let's try a simple example:

It is raining outside - Claim.

If I go outside, I will get wet - If uttered without any prior information, a claim. If uttered right after the previous statement, a logical deduction.

And to extend: My neighbour was out in the rain. He must love to get wet. Claim, followed by logical deduction.

[i]the neighbour might have had an important errand that forced him out in the rain[ii]. Refutation of the previous logical deduction by showing that the previous logical deduction does not automatically follow the previous claim.

[CyberGnu]

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.

Again, I have to ask about your dimension. Do you percieve colors as we do in our dimension? What color is the sky?

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)

As I said, I refuse to believe any media targeted to the participants in a conflict.

[CyberGnu]

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.

I'm sorry, I thought you and Kroeze were discussing history. In history, a current newspaper article is not a primary source.

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

What quote was this? And when the NYT quotes Israeli intelleligence, doesn't it say "Israeli intelligence sources say"? I'm assuming that the NYT is telling the truth (i.e. that Israeli intelligence sources really has said what the NYT claims they said), but that does not in any way imply that the Israeli intelligence sources aren't lying.

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.

Why?

[Sirotnikov]

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.

That would be nice if we were discussing info provided by CIA.

However when we are talking about info I'm talking about - Israeli newspapers rely on leaks either from idf intelligence, or from senior commanders.

The IDF's intelligence corps job description as you can read on the IDF site, is to provide intelligence and keep sensitive intelligence in israel (as in, stop people from blurbing out sensitive details). period.

no counter intelligence, no special services, no psycho warfare , nothing. that is all a function of the mossad and shin bet.

the IDF intelligence cropse is purely informational.

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.

Who is exactly to say that WP and NYT are objective while the JP and NYP are not?

You are taking your own assumptions for facts, and then you can't understand how can I argue against it.

Maybe the NYT and the WP look objective to you, because they have bias which fits your point of view?

Only by Kroeze's actions and statements can you base your opinion. That other sources, who happen to be anti-semitic, quotes the same sources proves absolutely nothing. Diddly/squat. Nada.

his actions: quoting anti-semitic sites.

The media of any part in a conflict, I will assume is biased. History shows that this is always true, no matter how good the media normally is. You can simply look at the US medias treatment of the war in Iraq for a good confirmaion of that.

The US is not part of the conflict? It doesn't have pro-jewish and pro-palestinian groups? Media is always biased.

But you can't equate bias with propoganda and lies, like you do when you automatically assume the JP and the NYP are lying.

So? This is not about gnus. This is about the treatment if information and debate.

There are different kinds of information.

There are facts and there are opinions. S Kroeze's articles skew facts in order to support opinions which they present.

Exactly. Which is why you should check his source if you have doubts about the veracity of his statement. But the instinctive screaming of how the sources are crap is useless unless you actually back it up.

His sources are crap. I've backed my claim by information from the israeli law book and the israeli statistics agency.
He demanded to see a secondary source, god knows why.

Ask, and thou shalt recieve. It is not my fault if you never ask for a source. I have yet to deny you either a source or a retraction.

you get around that:

So? This is not something that requires a source, I never claim it to be a fact. It's a plausible assumption.

It's also plausible to assume that the terrorist did target kids - as terrorists are like that. brutal and all.

You just assume all you want, and negate the rest as evil JP propoganda.

Not sure if you knew this, but the world seldom works like in the movies. Real life villains seldom declare their evil intentions to the world - you have to infer from their actions or lack thereof.

You have yet to prove that Sharon is a real life villain, which you must do before you attribute villain like sayings to his character.

[CyberGnu]

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.

Nah, I might end up in the same class as you, and that would just be awful.

Do you really not know what you are arguing, or are you again trying to weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong?

If the first, let me refresh your memory:

posted on 03/04/03, 14:40
Gnu:The question was whether Arafat was democratically elected. Jimmy Carter, as head of the the UN election observers, declared that the election was fair and democratic.

Good attempt of weasling out of admitting you were wrong though. Not succesful, but good. If I remember correctly, in the original thread you just disappeared...

Your answer:

Yes, we know how very reliable they are. Both the UN and Jimmy Carter.

Do you recall the time in 1990 when UN inspectors declared Iraq had no nuclear program?

It so happenned, that following the Allied invasion, it was discovered they were very wrong, and the nuclear program was quite advanced.

So the question remains: Why do you think that the IAEA's failure to perform a task they are not mandated or designed to do has any bearing on the trustworthiness of the UN observers (headed by Jimmy Carter).

And do you have any ACTUAL points to make regarding the UN trustworthiness, or is it time to be a man and admit you were wrong, again?

[CyberGnu]

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]

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.

Well, the next time I believe a an editorial in a right-wing newspaper about a very leftist political figure, that would be the first.

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...00251503154.htm

Well, apparently the website was down when I looked for it, and the first time I clicked on your link. This is the answer I got the first time:
We can't find that page,
but here are some tools to find it


SEARCH THE SITE

You can search the previous seven editions of The Washington Times Online for free. For an advanced search with more options, click here.

We post about one-third of the original content from the daily print edition on our Web site. Please search our Long-Term Archives if you can't find what you're looking for. Searching and viewing the article summaries are free, and you can retrieve the full articles for a modest fee.

However, the second time it worked.

And my suspicion was confirmed: It is an editorial, in a right wing newspaper, by a right-wing activist.

So the only thing it proves is your utter inability to understand the concept of reliable sources.
*sigh*

How is that relevant?

Because an editorial is not news. I think that should be readily apparent in the division of newspapers into "news" and "opinion". I really don't care what this guys opinion is, since he doesn;t provide sources either. All it does is to extend the sequence on step further...

For the almight umbaas sake, think!!!!! "I base my opinion on this other guys opinion". It sounds ridicioulus!

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.

Evading? Would that be posting an editorial, and then whine when I won't accept it as news?

[CyberGnu]

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?

Because it is a right wing newspaper.

If you have any real information on the authors of Kroezes books, feel free to share.

[CyberGnu]

Edan: As I said before, we won't know until we hear from Kroeze.

As you might have noticed, I seldom overlap with him. We normally debate different issues.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:

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.

While I don't accept that the existence of a book equals the accuracy of quotes - one could pick an obscure book for which there are only three copies, and make it up - but you do have a good suggestion.

I looked up Lowenthall, Marvin at http://catalog.loc.gov/ , and came up with the following books (only listing duplicates once):

Montaigne, Michel de, 1533-1592.
Jews of Germany; a history of sixteen centuries. With a pref. by M.J. Bonn.
World passed by; scenes and memories of Jewish civilization in Europe and North Africa
Jews of Germany; a story of sixteen centuries
This was New York, the nation's capital in 1789
Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln
Henrietta Szold, life and letters.
Proposed roads for American Jewry; a symposium

Note that none of them are "The Diaries of Theodor Herzl". A search on that title turns up nothing, as does a search of the other two authors. So I think it's safe to disregard the quotes given (but then, I've been doing that ever since I saw that they were copied and pasted from that site...)