Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It takes me 2 seconds to find a post that claims something is biased. Even on this page. That claims a tweet is biased and thus irrelevant.

I've read the entire thing. I've watched AltaGuy go from "unbiased 3rd person viewer" in his first post somewhere on page 10 to crazy "Israel is worse than Hitler" on page 80.

Just think about it next time a source is posted. A biased source is not always lying. You should take the information presented and think about it anyways.

I completely agree with the bolded point. A nut job can retweet something that is true.

I did not claim the tweet biased or untrue, as you'll note in my posts (/strawman). My comment was about epistemic closure. How does Pamela Geller become your source for a tweet someone else sent out? What is the internet trajectory that one has to be on to end up on Pamela Geller's page and find a tweet that she pointed out? Sure seems like you're traveling the Confirmation Bias Superhighway. So why should I pretend that you're open to discussion?

Case in point: David Duke may think, like me, that dogs are better than cats. But if I put up a post that says "Hey guys! Check out this link on David Duke's page to another guy's post about how dogs are better than cats!" ... then it's natural for the reader to think "Exactly how did this guy end up finding a racist's page for a link to supportive material?"

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I completely agree with the bolded point. A nut job can retweet something that is true.

I did not claim the tweet biased or untrue, as you'll note in my posts (/strawman). My comment was about epistemic closure. How does Pamela Geller become your source for a tweet someone else sent out? What is the internet trajectory that one has to be on to end up on Pamela Geller's page and find a tweet that she pointed out? Sure seems like you're traveling the Confirmation Bias Superhighway. So why should I pretend that you're open to discussion?

Case in point: David Duke may think, like me, that dogs are better than cats. But if I put up a post that says "Hey guys! Check out this link on David Duke's page to another guy's post about how dogs are better than cats!" ... then it's natural for the reader to think "Exactly how did this guy end up finding a racist's page for a link to supportive material?"

Firstly we are not taking about David duke here.

Secondly I already explained it. When you Google "Italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths" it's the first link that comes up.

Also love how quickly you are to play the racism card after pages of calling out naga waza for playing the anti semite card.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly we are not taking about David duke here.

Secondly I already explained it. When you Google "Italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths" it's the first link that comes up.

Also love how quickly you are to play the racism card after pages of calling out naga waza for playing the anti semite card.

How did you come about googling "italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths"?

Was it a shot in the dark?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly we are not taking about David duke here.

Secondly I already explained it. When you Google "Italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths" it's the first link that comes up.

Also love how quickly you are to play the racism card after pages of calling out naga waza for playing the anti semite card.

Love it. Just love it.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I completely agree with the bolded point. A nut job can retweet something that is true.

I did not claim the tweet biased or untrue, as you'll note in my posts (/strawman). My comment was about epistemic closure. How does Pamela Geller become your source for a tweet someone else sent out? What is the internet trajectory that one has to be on to end up on Pamela Geller's page and find a tweet that she pointed out? Sure seems like you're traveling the Confirmation Bias Superhighway. So why should I pretend that you're open to discussion?

Case in point: David Duke may think, like me, that dogs are better than cats. But if I put up a post that says "Hey guys! Check out this link on David Duke's page to another guy's post about how dogs are better than cats!" ... then it's natural for the reader to think "Exactly how did this guy end up finding a racist's page for a link to supportive material?"

From this, it seems like the only real sources would be the biggest outlets - Reuters, AP, CNN, CBC, FOX and so forth. Since these are the sources that people would go to without following a specific train of thought?

To be fair, commentary on those mainstream sites generally is a bit more vague, and probably wouldn't have led to how explosive this thread has gotten and how entrenched we have become in our positions.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly we are not taking about David duke here.

Secondly I already explained it. When you Google "Italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths" it's the first link that comes up.

Also love how quickly you are to play the racism card after pages of calling out naga waza for playing the anti semite card.

Yes, because the poster in question tosses around that accusation to people who strongly disagree with him. They're not making racist comments, they're simply not 100% in lock step with the poster's worldview.

But when someone takes out ad space at a bus stop to disseminate racist messages, then yeah... call me guilty of calling them out. I'd tell it to her face as well.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly we are not taking about David duke here.



Secondly I already explained it. When you Google "Italian reporter says Hamas responsible for school deaths" it's the first link that comes up.



Also love how quickly you are to play the racism card after pages of calling out naga waza for playing the anti semite card.

FWIW, I googled the following:
"Hamas responsible" - Pamela Geller doesn't come up
"Hamas responsible school" - Pamela Geller doesn't come up
"Hamas responsible school deaths" - Here is where Pamela finally comes up, on page 3, in an entirely different article than the one you linked.

Your scenario of hapless googling and just taking a random link holds no water.

On a side note, if you have time, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the claims made by the twitter account you were using as evidence that I brought up previously (linked below). Specifically regarding IDF restricting FOP more than Hamas, their repeated shelling of a UNHRWA school without Hamas present that they then lied about, and them potentially framing Hamas as the ones who broke ceasefire. This is not meant as a "gotcha" post, but rather, I'm honestly curious what you, as a supporter of Israel, thinks about those facts.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

long post

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It takes me 2 seconds to find a post that claims something is biased. Even on this page. That claims a tweet is biased and thus irrelevant.

I've read the entire thing. I've watched AltaGuy go from "unbiased 3rd person viewer" in his first post somewhere on page 10 to crazy "I hate Israel and everything it stands for" later on.

Just think about it next time a source is posted. A biased source is not always lying. You should take the information presented and think about it anyways.

Since you singled me out, and made something up completely to do it, why don't you go ahead and try to prove either one of those erroneous statements.

Clearly you have not read the 'entire thing' or you live in an alternate reality.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Since you singled me out, and made something up completely to do it, why don't you go ahead and try to prove either one of those erroneous statements.

Clearly you have not read the 'entire thing' or you live in an alternate reality.

I seem to have confused two posters. I remember your post #379 as reasonable but it was someone else that has completely lost their mind in the last 10 pages.

My apologies.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Um because that's not how war works? This ridiculous argument doesn't even deserve a reply. Why doesn't the U.S just nuke all of Russia?

The relationship between the US and Russia bears almost no similarities at all to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But beyond that, the US nuking russia would likely lead to an all out world wide nuclear war with unimaginable possible consequences. However, your comments seems to totally ignore the reality that many wars do target civilians... where do you think the phrase Carpet Bombing comes from?

Further, you are consistently claiming that Israel is purposely targeting civilians. If that's the case, why have they invested so much in avoiding civilian casualties? Why not just fire indiscriminately at civilians and make it known their goal is to punish the general populace.... the same as their opponent? If they are genocidal, as you seem to suggest, what's stopping them? The Palestinians have nearly zero military resistance if Israel decided on a full invasion...?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Yes, because the poster in question tosses around that accusation to people who strongly disagree with him. They're not making racist comments, they're simply not 100% in lock step with the poster's worldview.

But when someone takes out ad space at a bus stop to disseminate racist messages, then yeah... call me guilty of calling them out. I'd tell it to her face as well.

Here is the ad for anyone interested:

"In any war between the civilized and the savage, support the civilized man.

Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

Quite frankly, doesn't seem any different than the variety of materials calling out "Zionists" or orthodox jews.

I would in no way support Geller's message or choice of words, but I think her message is very similar to many of the anti-Israeli messages. There's a true double standard about what is acceptable speech when it comes to criticism of Israelis and Palestinians. That bus ad is no different than the Isreali flag with the swastika on it.

The reality of the situation is that both sides need to watch for racist approaches. The Palestinian side seems to be on a fairly high horse about the issue.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

FWIW, I googled the following:
"Hamas responsible" - Pamela Geller doesn't come up
"Hamas responsible school" - Pamela Geller doesn't come up
"Hamas responsible school deaths" - Here is where Pamela finally comes up, on page 3, in an entirely different article than the one you linked.

Your scenario of hapless googling and just taking a random link holds no water.

On a side note, if you have time, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the claims made by the twitter account you were using as evidence that I brought up previously (linked below). Specifically regarding IDF restricting FOP more than Hamas, their repeated shelling of a UNHRWA school without Hamas present that they then lied about, and them potentially framing Hamas as the ones who broke ceasefire. This is not meant as a "gotcha" post, but rather, I'm honestly curious what you, as a supporter of Israel, thinks about those facts.

"italian reporter says hamas rocket hit school"

First hit is the Pamela Geller site.

As for the previous tweets, a few comments:

1) They show a reporter who previously romanticized the Palestinian cause, and has since changed their mind.

2) Notice how the reporter did not have to wait until he got back home to make a tweet about Israel or the IDF. You can talk all you want about silencing the media, but that says a lot.

Israel does not restrict FOP more than Hamas. Hamas points guns at reporters. Israel, like all armies, controls what the press says in wartime. If they did not, reporters would give away sensitive information like troop movements.

If Israel was restricting FOP more than Hamas, how was the reporter able to call out Israel from Israel, but could not do the same for Hamas?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Further, you are consistently claiming that Israel is purposely targeting civilians. If that's the case, why have they invested so much in avoiding civilian casualties? Why not just fire indiscriminately at civilians and make it known their goal is to punish the general populace.... the same as their opponent? If they are genocidal, as you seem to suggest, what's stopping them? The Palestinians have nearly zero military resistance if Israel decided on a full invasion...?

International pressure doesn't let israel just bomb every house. Israel has found a nice way to purposefully kill civilians though, just claim that it was a storage depot for those puny rockets or claim that there was fire coming in from the "vicinity".

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

"italian reporter says hamas rocket hit school"

First hit is the Pamela Geller site.

So you have a google alert set up for "italian reporter says hamas rocket hit school"?

That's some kinda specificity there.

In case you can't tell, we're questioning you on your honesty on how you found that particular piece of information, considering you didn't link the tweet (or respond to the other tweets by the aforementioned reporter), nor have you divulged any other method under which you would have found that info.

Mostly, you're doing a song and dance here, like with your comments about this thread being populated by people accusing Israel of Genocide, or that Palestinians receive the most aid on the planet, or the most US aid, or whatever it is the point you were making that you abandoned when called to defend it.

You're transparent here, my friend.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So you have a google alert set up for "italian reporter says hamas rocket hit school"?

That's some kinda specificity there.

In case you can't tell, we're questioning you on your honesty on how you found that particular piece of information, considering you didn't link the tweet (or respond to the other tweets by the aforementioned reporter), nor have you divulged any other method under which you would have found that info.

Mostly, you're doing a song and dance here, like with your comments about this thread being populated by people accusing Israel of Genocide, or that Palestinians receive the most aid on the planet, or the most US aid, or whatever it is the point you were making that you abandoned when called to defend it.

You're transparent here, my friend.

Ummm no.

I read a story earlier in day about an Italian reporter who tweeted that Hamas was responsible. I then later googled the matter.

It turns out their a lot more stories coming out of Gaza about similar actions Hamas. A lot of reporters can now speak more freely once getting out of their range.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by blankall

"italian reporter says hamas rocket hit school"

First hit is the Pamela Geller site.

As for the previous tweets, a few comments:

1) They show a reporter who previously romanticized the Palestinian cause, and has since changed their mind.

2) Notice how the reporter did not have to wait until he got back home to make a tweet about Israel or the IDF. You can talk all you want about silencing the media, but that says a lot.

Israel does not restrict FOP more than Hamas. Hamas points guns at reporters. Israel, like all armies, controls what the press says in wartime. If they did not, reporters would give away sensitive information like troop movements.

If Israel was restricting FOP more than Hamas, how was the reporter able to call out Israel from Israel, but could not do the same for Hamas?

Again, that's an uber specific phrase that you wouldn't just google, so clearly you were on her site prior. If you did happen to read about it earlier, I suppose you could link the article for us?

1. Where did you come up with that narrative? His intentions have never differed. He has remained critical of Israel and Hamas the entire time. He even has this to say about people cherry picking that specific tweet:

@gabrielebarbati: Noticed that the more tweets I post about #idf #israel responsibilities in war in #gaza, the more a single tweet blaming Hamas is RT. Weird.

And when questioned about situations like the one you're guilty of, he had this to say earlier today:

Question:

@So_valid: @gabrielebarbati You're named a lot in pro-Israel media alleging mass Hamas intimidation/cover ups of human shield use. How true is this?

Answer:

@gabrielebarbati: @So_valid Ever heard of something call manipulation / propaganda? Give a look at my tweets if you have time and see for yourself.

So he accuses of pro-Israel people of manipulation and propaganda. Interesting.

2. I'm confused though, you took his tweet at absolute face value regarding Hamas accidentally bombing a school, but when he says Israel is more restrictive on FOP than Hamas, you deny it? It seems as though you're only willing to take his tweets at face value when they support Israel, any other time they must be dissected and have your own narrative added.

And you still have not addressed his tweets regarding Israel knowingly bombing a UNRWA school that did not have Hamas around it, and then lying about it.

Here are a few more tweets of his from today if you're curious:

@gabrielebarbati: @BackFromIsrael Rockets fired 4 domestic approval in Gaza. B4 war Hamas gov heavily criticized, after 100% people consent. Same 4 Netanyahu

Seems to support the idea that this increased Hamas' reputation.

@gabrielebarbati: Netanyahu to press: "Regret civilian casualties" http://t.co/8SUGSxYTqG Too bad you didn't do enough to avoid them, to say the least

He had this to say about Israel's "pamphlet" system of warning people:

@gabrielebarbati: @israelforever @JonDonnison 1 Can't shelter 1,8ml people trapped by Israel&Egytpt embargo+naval blockade 2 Any escape from 1ton F16 bombs?

I'm certainly not saying this guy is an untouchable trustworthy source on everything at hand, but why the blind trust of one of his tweets, while avoiding the subject matter and direct words of others all together?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Again, that's an uber specific phrase that you wouldn't just google, so clearly you were on her site prior. If you did happen to read about it earlier, I suppose you could link the article for us?

1. Where did you come up with that narrative? His intentions have never differed. He has remained critical of Israel and Hamas the entire time. He even has this to say about people cherry picking that specific tweet:



And when questioned about situations like the one you're guilty of, he had this to say earlier today:

Question:

Answer:


So he accuses of pro-Israel people of manipulation and propaganda. Interesting.

2. I'm confused though, you took his tweet at absolute face value regarding Hamas accidentally bombing a school, but when he says Israel is more restrictive on FOP than Hamas, you deny it? It seems as though you're only willing to take his tweets at face value when they support Israel, any other time they must be dissected and have your own narrative added.

And you still have not addressed his tweets regarding Israel knowingly bombing a UNRWA school that did not have Hamas around it, and then lying about it.

Here are a few more tweets of his from today if you're curious:


Seems to support the idea that this increased Hamas' reputation.



He had this to say about Israel's "pamphlet" system of warning people:


I'm certainly not saying this guy is an untouchable trustworthy source on everything at hand, but why the blind trust of one of his tweets, while avoiding the subject matter and direct words of others all together?

Your pills?

A person speculating on something is different than providing witness evidence. No it's not determinative of anything, but Palestinian witnesses saying they saw Hamas covering up a massacre is pretty compelling.

[Flash Walken]

Ah, yes, the old anti-Semitic label isn't sticking, best to try to paint him as mentally ill in need of medication.

The emporer wears no clothes and you are equally as transparent.

[Coys1882]

Jesus christ some of you guys are delusional. HAHA. This thread is a disaster zone now.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by blankall

Your pills?



A person speculating on something is different than providing witness evidence. No it's not determinative of anything, but Palestinian witnesses saying they saw Hamas covering up a massacre is pretty compelling.

Ignoring the incredibly insulting insinuation that I need medication, I agree. Speculation is not quite the same as eye-witness accounts:

@gabrielebarbati: 25/07 #IDF claimed Hamas firing at from inside or near #UNRWA school bombed in BeitHanun #Gaza. "Fights all around". 4 neighbors say false

@gabrielebarbati: 25/07 2nd survivor UN school bombed BeitHanun #Gaza: "We were 750 people, gathered in yard. Then 12-15 shells from dababat". Dabab=Tank

So, multiple eye-witness accounts state Hamas were nowhere near the UNRWA that Israel bombed, despite knowing it was full of civilians. 12-15 tank shells fired on civilians and only civilians, under the protection of a UN shelter...

Thoughts?