Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[CyberGnu]

Dino:

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.

Well, the problem comes from two directions. One is when people like Siro just waves away an entire argument because "the sources are crap" and then refuse to explain WHY they are crap.

The other comes when people like Siro either refuse to post a source for whatever claim they make, or insists that the Jerusalem Post or Newsmax is a valid source. If that is the bar we set, all debate is pointless. I could simply claim that the Journal of Gnu Opinion (a well written but not widely circulated piece) supports everything I say, from how research shows that inserting blue toy cars in ones rectum is beneficial for cold sores to how every person in Singapore is a chimpansee.

[Edan]

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

It's clear to me that you refute anything that disagrees with your preconcieved notions, while assuming everything that agrees with them.

[Edan]

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

Then we won't know.

[Ramo]

First law of Israel-Palestine debates: In the limit as the number of posts approaches infinity, the thread degenerates into a debate over the validity of various sources.

[CyberGnu]

siro:

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

Well, we were discussing intelligence agencies in general.

I doubt that the IDF's intelligence agency is much different from any other intelligence agency: they serve the country and no one else.

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

It's clear to me that you refute anything that disagrees with your preconcieved notions, while assuming everything that agrees with them.

Has Siro brought you into his dimension?

Post news from a reputable newspaper (i.e. NYT, LAT, WP, CT, etc etc) and I'll accept it.

But don't insult my intelligence by assuming I will accept drivel from biased media, whther pro-israeli or pro-palestinian, or opinion pieces.

[CyberGnu]

siro:

his actions: quoting anti-semitic sites.

and how do you know that he is quoting anti-semitic sites, and not the source materual the site is quoting?

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.

I don't assume they arey lying, but I don't assume they are telling the truth either. the NYT, on the other hand, I assume is telling the truth.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But don't insult my intelligence by assuming I will accept drivel from biased media, whther pro-israeli or pro-palestinian, or opinion pieces.

Oh, sorry, you only assume drivel in the form of primary source quotes from anti-semitic sites.

[CyberGnu]

you get around that:

Yes, amazing how this thing called logic works, isn't it. you might want to try it one day.

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

Of course it is plausible. but we in the civilized world has this thing about "innocent until proven guilty". thus, if it is plausble that he didn't have that intentiion, we cannot assume that he had it.

Now, if you could establish a pattern (he only attacked houses where he observed children), THEN could conclude that his intentions were to kill kids.

[CyberGnu]

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.

Well, Sharon is a special case, in that he IS actually a villain, from the massacres in shabrilla. But if we ignore that for the monent, I cannot "prove' anything. I can only point out that his actions are consistent with him being a villain. His behavious is only consistent with evil or amazing ignorance... I don't think he is stupid, so that leaves only one option.

[CyberGnu]

Ramo, true, probably because Siro has realized that it is an effective part of his normal tactic: to post until the other party can't keep up.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, you might want to check this website:

http://www.fair.org/

[CyberGnu]

Damn, I forgot, they are obviously untrustworthy, since they didn't list the JP as the only true gospel of Jahvee

[CyberGnu]

Edan, please tell me you were joking...

[Sirotnikov]

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?

1. The UN in 1990 has reached an incorrect conclusion about Iraq's nuclear weapons ability based on an unreliable IAEA report.

2. Jimi Carter is a noturious left winger with a soft spot for the PLO since his presidency the 70s.

Thus, both are unreliable judges IMO.

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.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this resource, unless you assume that right-wingers are pathological liars.

If you can prove one fact wrong, then you're critic is deserved. Otherwise - you're absolutely full of **it.

Did Jimmy Carter not, ask Castro directly whether he exports weapons, and then held his word as "proof"?

Did Carter not said of Kim Il Sung, a "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country."

Has N. Korea not suffered from government-imposed mass-starvations?

Has Carter not written a letter to the U.N. Security Council asking it to stop Bush Sen. from attacking Iraq?

Did Carter not call Tito "a man who believes in human rights." "a great and courageous leader" who "has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years"?

Did Carter not publicly tell Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, "Our goals are the same. … We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people." ?

Did Carter not tell the first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland."?

Has he not told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country.?


Just because the article is written by a right winger, doesn't mean it's false.

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

I'm asking you to either accept or disprove the facts it presented. Or if you can, disprove the reliability of this major US paper, by providing an example of a false fact or a lie.

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

I presented Kroeze (I again say) primary information regarding his questions, which he ignored.