Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Sirotnikov]

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.

Obviously.

You have no real knowledge of the issue so you go according to your pre-assumptions.

Great!

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

Lucky for me Edan has found no evidence of the source material in the congress library.

I'm infact using your own tactic. Since the book he's quoting is adopted by a communist anti-semitic site, then it must be all anti-semitic drivel and I will not accept it. Period.

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

Yes, I'm aware of your capabilities at twisting logic.

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.

Ok then. Let's take your own logic and apply it to your own words:

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.

There's such a thing innocent until proven guilty.

Infact, he was proven not directly involved nor directly guilty in the events of Sabra and Shatilla by an Israeli court. Later claims of him giving a silent agreement to the events, were refuted in an American court, when he sued for libel.

Thus, he is not only "assumed innocent" he is infact innocent.

And as for the rest of the cases, there you go again making assumptions against Sharon, that are contrary to your "innocent until proven guilty" logic.

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.

I doubt that I can do that since all the newspaper articles describing those events are by now buried in the archives of news sites and have to be paid for.

Moreover, you wouldn't accept anything written by anyone who was actually here. When I brought to you information based on police reports regarding the terrorist attacks, and newspapers articles covering it, you dismissed it as JP propoganda.

Obviously no terror ever occurs in Israel - it's all a JP propoganda.

http://www.fair.org/

As soon as you read: http://www.honestreporting.com/

Consider this the answer to FAIR's section about the Middle East.

[CyberGnu]

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

What incorrect conclusion? That Iraq could not produce a bomb from the fissionable material in the time span between the 1990 Nov inspection and the next scheduled one? That was an entirely correct conclusion.

That Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program? The UN would make such a conclusion, since that wasn't part of the IAEA's mandate.

So we are back to the question: why should the UN's observations about an election in palestine be invalidated by the failure of another UN agency to inspect something they were not designed nor mandated to inspect?

How about the UNICEF's failure to put a man on the moon? The UNFOR's failure to prevent Haleys comet?

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

Source?

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

tell me, exactly what part of "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." was it that you didn't understand? Point it out, and I'll try to rephrase it for you.

[Sirotnikov]

What incorrect conclusion? That Iraq could not produce a bomb from the fissionable material in the time span between the 1990 Nov inspection and the next scheduled one? That was an entirely correct conclusion.

That Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program? The UN would make such a conclusion, since that wasn't part of the IAEA's mandate.

So we are back to the question: why should the UN's observations about an election in palestine be invalidated by the failure of another UN agency to inspect something they were not designed nor mandated to inspect?

Fine - no one failed anything. I guess that limitation of nuclear weapons is not something which the UN is serious about.

I bet the UN didn't take Iraq's invitation (see post 4 pages ago) and checked it's facilities for themselves.

Source?

do I have to prove to you that jimi carter is a left winger, or will you "let that slide"?

tell me, exactly what part of "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." was it that you didn't understand? Point it out, and I'll try to rephrase it for you.

As soon as you tell me what facts presented by the article you are sceptical about.

The article presented an opinion - which you can agree or disagree with. The facts however are there. Do you doubt any of the facts? Or do you merely find it inconvinient to deal with them?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

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. May I suggest a fourth: Israel is not so awful.

I'm going to sleep soon, so I probably will end with this post. Happy civving, or OTing, or whatever.

hi ,

seconded , a country with such a large mix of people , a country where you can go snowboarding and getting a tan on the beach in one day , a country with vast amounts of fresh fish , fresh fruits , the best weather in the MED , the best health care , and the only country in the world that has bunkers and gas mask for all of its people , ....

sick , no problem , we have some of the best doctors

from ahava products to golan wines

Israel , the only true democrazy in the entire region

dont forget to bring your sunglasses


okay , thats it , look gnu if you dont want to believe that nk has the bomb or is doing nasty stuff , why dont you go there yourself ?

gnu , try the news section of cnn for whatever proof you want , but like always , ya shall say "thats no proof"

bye

[Sirotnikov]

CARTER COACHED ARAFAT ON WORLD ROLE

By Curtis Wilkie, Globe Staff

NEW ORLEANS - 03/27/98 - At a time when Yasser Arafat was regarded as a diplomatic pariah by the US government, former President Jimmy Carter secretly coached the Palestinian leader to improve his image, drafted passages for Arafat's public speeches, and counseled other leaders of the Palestinian uprising in Israeli-occupied territories, according to a forthcoming book.

''There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasser Arafat,'' the historian Douglas Brinkley wrote in ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House'' to be published in May by Viking. ''Carter felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition. ... Both men were like modern Bedouins with airplanes
instead of camels,'' always moving.

The book draws a portrait of Carter as a messianic character, infused with righteousness, working Arab back channels to change Middle East equations.

From their first meeting in 1990, Carter and Arafat ''stayed in constant communication,'' Brinkley writes. While Arafat agreed to ''distance himself'' from radical elements in the Palestine Liberation Organization,
Carter encouraged the PLO chairman to describe the Palestinian plight to the ''world community'' in speeches designed ''to secure maximum sympathy.''

In one letter, written in May 1990, Carter suggested that Arafat begin an address by describing the ''abusive policies'' of the Likud government in Israel during the early stages of the intifadah. Carter recommended that Arafat say:


''Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. Our young men and women ... want to learn ... Since January 1988, the Israelis have closed all the Palestinian universities; 93,000 of our young people are forced to spend their days on the streets, or huddled together with their families in darkened rooms under interminable curfews.''
Carter urged Arafat to use a rhetorical litany after each mention of a deprivation: ''What would you do if these were your children and grandchildren?''

It could not be determined if Arafat ever used Carter's precise language, but the PLO leader did adopt a less belligerent way of talking about Palestinian distress. At the time of the Carter letter, Arafat was still struggling to overcome the pariah status he acquired during his organization's years of violent resistance. The PLO would eventually win full recognition from the United States when Arafat appeared with the
late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at a White House peace ceremony in 1993.

Brinkley, who interrupted plans for a three-volume biography of the 39th president to concentrate on Carter's career after leaving the White House, said he was given ''full access to Carter's postpresidential
papers and trip reports.''

The historian conducted numerous interviews with Carter and accompanied him on trips to the Middle East and Haiti to gather material. Although the 73-year-old former president has reviewed the manuscript, Brinkley said it was agreed that the book ''would be unauthorized so I would be free to draw my own conclusions.''

Brinkley, a professor of history and director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans, made page proofs of the 500-page book available to The Boston Globe.

In the book, Brinkley characterizes Carter as a ''self-styled peace outlaw'' who repeatedly defied conventions and raised the hackles of the State Department with his freelance diplomacy.

Carter's penchant for using CNN, controlled by his friend Ted Turner, as a mouthpiece led to clashes with President Clinton over policies involving North Korea and Haiti. After Clinton learned of telephone
calls between Carter and Fidel Castro, Clinton ordered his foreign policy apparatus to ''keep Jimmy Carter out of Cuban policy,'' Brinkley wrote.

Carter, preparing for an overseas trip, was not available for comment.

Before his quarrels with Clinton, Carter was often in conflict with President Reagan. He regained favor with President Bush, but according to Brinkley, Bush and his defense secretary, Richard Cheney, were
''outraged'' after learning of Carter's private attempts to persuade American allies to abandon the war buildup against Iraq in 1991.

When other Arab states withheld financial support after the PLO sided with Iraq in the Gulf War, Brinkley writes, Arafat prevailed upon Carter to undertake ''a fund-raising mission for the PLO'' by flying to Saudi
Arabia. ''By obtaining King Fahd's pledge of support, Carter had rendered the PLO an invaluable service,'' Brinkley writes.

Although ''The Unfinished Presidency'' follows the former president's efforts - operating out of the Carter Center in Atlanta - to resolve crises, monitor elections, and combat illness from Bosnia to Somalia
over the past two decades, the most fascinating chapters deal with Carter's alliance with the Palestinians.

''The intifadah exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered just like Bull Connor's mad dogs in Birmingham,'' Carter told Brinkley in a reference to a 1960s incident in the civil rights struggle in the South.

While Carter has championed the Palestinian cause, Brinkley noted, wealthy and grateful Arabs have channeled substantial contributions to the Carter Center.

Although Carter has long identified with underdogs, it took years for his Palestinian position to evolve. Early in the first year of his presidency, Carter created a diplomatic flap by referring to a Palestinian ''homeland'' at a town meeting in Clinton, Mass. He backed away from the controversy and excluded Palestinian representatives from his Camp David summit meeting with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1978. It was a decision Carter later came to regret.

After losing the White House, Brinkley writes, Carter struck up a relationship in the mid-1980s with Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian-American who operated a center for the study of civil disobedience in Jerusalem. ''Carter helped Awad rewrite passages of his pamphlets before they were distributed throughout the occupied territories,'' Brinkley says. Awad was later deported by the Israelis for advocating nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The Carter connection encouraged the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip to challenge the Israeli occupation. Hanan Ashrawi, one of the most prominent of the West Bank Palestinians, told Brinkley: ''We knew Carter was working with us. That knowledge gave us strength.''

The intifadah broke out in late 1987. More than two years later, Carter called upon Mary King, a friend and his former deputy director of the agency overseeing the Peace Corps, to arrange a meeting with Arafat in Paris. In the 1960s, King had been a civil rights crusader linked to New Left causes embracing the Palestinians.

As president, Carter had been constrained from meeting with Arafat by a policy developed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and written into a law forbidding contact with the PLO. Carter called it
''an unwarranted restraint'' in an interview with The Boston Globe in 1990, shortly after his meeting with Arafat, who was then moving toward winning recognition from the United States. ''It would have been easier for us to bring about more progress toward peace if the Kissinger commitment had not been made,'' Carter said, but he felt honor-bound not to violate the policy.

Carter felt no such restraint as a private citizen. In one of his own books, ''Living Faith,'' he described his renegade philosophy: ''Jesus went to his death and Paul spent his final years in prison rather than conform to religious and secular laws which they could not accept,'' Carter wrote in 1996. ''We are not required to submit to the domination of authority without assessing whether it was contrary to our faith or beliefs.''

[CyberGnu]

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

I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?

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."

Why does this matter?

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

And this is Carters fault how?

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

And this makes him unreliabable how?

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"?

I don't know. Did he? context? source?

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." ?

I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?

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

I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?

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

I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?

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.

What facts? You linked an editorial piece. The paper is not the issue, even if it is a right wing mag, but the same would be true if it was an editorial in the NYT. Hell, Sharon even had an editorial in the NYT. Would you like to use that as proof too?

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

I'm not familiar with this exchange. I'm assuming it goes back to the old debate on jewish marriages?

Obviously.

You have no real knowledge of the issue so you go according to your pre-assumptions.

Great!

Just as I assume that if I go out in the rain, I will be wet. Shouldn't I?

Or are you saying that I should assume that the IDF's intelligence agency works diffrently from every other intelligence agency in the world, including Israels own?

Does it suprise you every time the water hits your head?

Lucky for me Edan has found no evidence of the source material in the congress library.

I agree, and I still say that we should wait for Kroeze to comment on that. Lowenthal had, accoding to Edan, written several books on the topic, so it might have been a misquote.

I'm infact using your own tactic. Since the book he's quoting is adopted by a communist anti-semitic site, then it must be all anti-semitic drivel and I will not accept it. Period.

Exactly what part of But the occurance of the quotes on an anti-semitic website proves absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter whether they appear on a website devoted to the teletubbies, neurosurgery or the application of handlotion on midgets as an amusing sunday night diversion.

the only thing that matters is the actual source itself. That't why it is called a primary source, as opposed to the website that quotes it, which is secondary. is it that you don't understand? Please point it out, and I'll try to rephrase it for you.

Yes, I'm aware of your capabilities at twisting logic.

There is no such thing. Either something is logical, or it isn't. One of the basic tenets of logic, actually.

There's such a thing innocent until proven guilty.

Infact, he was proven not directly involved nor directly guilty in the events of Sabra and Shatilla by an Israeli court. Later claims of him giving a silent agreement to the events, were refuted in an American court, when he sued for libel.

Well, he has not been tried by a real court, and he is vigorously fighting the trial in Belgium. Can't really make any claims from the libel suit: that was a civil suit, separate from the criminal.

And as for the rest of the cases, there you go again making assumptions against Sharon, that are contrary to your "innocent until proven guilty" logic.

Wow... so because this part was AFTER the previous one, you completely failed to connect them?

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.

.

Of course, I forgot that time moves diffretnly for you. I guess it could have been months between reading those posts, even if they appeared right after each other in our world.

I doubt that I can do that since all the newspaper articles describing those events are by now buried in the archives of news sites and have to be paid for.

Moreover, you wouldn't accept anything written by anyone who was actually here. When I brought to you information based on police reports regarding the terrorist attacks, and newspapers articles covering it, you dismissed it as JP propoganda.

Obviously no terror ever occurs in Israel - it's all a JP propoganda.

No, but since we can't separate the real events from the JP propaganda, we can;t trust any of it.

[CyberGnu]

As soon as you read: http://www.honestreporting.com/

Consider this the answer to FAIR's section about the Middle East.

Fascinating. Again you manage to coalesce your incomprehension in one single post...

So you somehow equate a well respected website devoted to fairness in all media, regardless of side, to one which has it's mission statement in the corner: HonestReporting is a fast-action website dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage. We scrutinize the worldwide media for anti-Israel bias, then alert and enable subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned.

You really have a bizarr view of the world... If it's not biased, it is pro-palestinian. If it is vigorously pro-israeli, it is fair. Can I assume that pro-palestinian equates anti-semitic?

[CyberGnu]

btw, THIS would be the counterpart to "honestreporting"

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/

[Panag]

gnu , come to look for yourself


"No, but since we can't separate the real events from the JP propaganda, we can;t trust any of it. "


every Jewish or Israeli poster has someone who at some point was either killed or injured , .....

some posters have the marks themselfs , ..... or is that also "jewish propaganda" , .....

ask the survivors of a suicide attack what they think about your propaganda , .....

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Fascinating. Again you manage to coalesce your incomprehension in one single post...

So you somehow equate a well respected website devoted to fairness in all media, regardless of side, to one which has it's mission statement in the corner: HonestReporting is a fast-action website dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage. We scrutinize the worldwide media for anti-Israel bias, then alert and enable subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned.

You really have a bizarr view of the world... If it's not biased, it is pro-palestinian. If it is vigorously pro-israeli, it is fair. Can I assume that pro-palestinian equates anti-semitic?

can we assume that you are to ignorant to comprehend your comprehention , ......

[CyberGnu]

Fine - no one failed anything. I guess that limitation of nuclear weapons is not something which the UN is serious about.

Of course it is, but it is limited to what it's mandate allows it to do.

I bet the UN didn't take Iraq's invitation (see post 4 pages ago) and checked it's facilities for themselves.

It did, and it found that the enriched uranium was untouched. It inspected the facilities, and concluded that the plant was not rebuilt to allow the production of weapons grade plutonium. all of which was 100% correct.

do I have to prove to you that jimi carter is a left winger, or will you "let that slide"?

Hmm, I think we can let that slide. He was a democrat known for his "compassionate goverment" after all.

As soon as you tell me what facts presented by the article you are sceptical about.

The article presented an opinion - which you can agree or disagree with. The facts however are there. Do you doubt any of the facts? Or do you merely find it inconvinient to deal with them?

All of them. I'm not only curious about the statements themselves, I also wondering about the context.

But passing the buck doesn't help you. someone else's opinion isn't any more valid than yours. If we could ask the guy about his sources, that would be an option, but since we can't, you are stuck where you started: without any substantiated facts to base your claim on.

[Panag]

"But passing the buck doesn't help you. someone else's opinion isn't any more valid than yours. If we could ask the guy about his sources, that would be an option, but since we can't, you are stuck where you started: without any substantiated facts to base your claim on. "

try reading the reports to congress , they are public , .....

or try the new website from the white house , .....

[CyberGnu]

okay , thats it , look gnu if you dont want to believe that nk has the bomb or is doing nasty stuff , why dont you go there yourself ?

Because they don't allow westerners? Because I don't understand the language? Because it is completely beside the point?

The claim was that since NK has bombs, the IAEA has failed. As far as anyone can tell, the NK DOESN"T have bombs, and even if it does have those 1-2 bombs, the plutonium from that comes from sources prior to the IAEA's inspections.

gnu , try the news section of cnn for whatever proof you want , but like always , ya shall say "thats no proof

Nothing there.

gnu , come to look for yourself

Sure. Will you buy the ticket? If I'm going to take an extra week of vacation, I need to take my gf with me, since I planned to spend my vacation time with her, so you need to buy a ticket for her to. I'm assuming we can live in your house?

every Jewish or Israeli poster has someone who at some point was either killed or injured , .....

some posters have the marks themselfs , ..... or is that also "jewish propaganda" , .....

ask the survivors of a suicide attack what they think about your propaganda , .....

What propaganda?

[CyberGnu]

can we assume that you are to ignorant to comprehend your comprehention , ......

Nope, I comprehend my comprehension quite well, thank you.

try reading the reports to congress , they are public , .....

or try the new website from the white house , .....

Care to give specifics?

[CyberGnu]

Fascinating. Siro, your post manages to paint Carter a man obsessed with one goal: Peace through diplomacy. No where in there does it portray him as being unreliable, quite the opposite: his attempts have been largely sucessful.