Israel Vs Palestine - the hard facts

[gunner]

Jeepers. Even a chipmunk could determine it is a highly biased website

This may indeed be true, and seems to be the opinion expressed by many users. But, in all fairness, Degreez has a point 'no one seems to be able to refute a single claim'. For example, are the statistics inaccurate?

Paul

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This may indeed be true, and seems to be the opinion expressed by many users. But, in all fairness, Degreez has a point 'no one seems to be able to refute a single claim'. For example, are the statistics inaccurate?

Paul

Degreez hasn't MADE a single claim. You have. The statistics are a misrepresentation that try to draw an inaccurate conclusion.

 

[Shayah]

This may indeed be true, and seems to be the opinion expressed by many users. But, in all fairness, Degreez has a point 'no one seems to be able to refute a single claim'. For example, are the statistics inaccurate?

Paul

I don't waste precious time debunking websites like Stormfront and Rense. This website also falls into that category.

I personally use only major media outlets and Wiki as sources. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, no one with any real integrity would dip into such foetid cesspools.

 

[Gardener]

I personally use only major media outlets and Wiki as sources.

I would think that good advice to take as far as the rules of this particular forum is concerned.

The steady stream of hate sites promoted and/or defended here gets to be a bit much. Heck, right here in this thread there is one person promoting it and two defending it already, and this whole forum loses integrity when hate is promoted in this way.

 

[Shayah]

I would think that good advice to take as far as the rules of this particular forum is concerned.

The steady stream of hate sites promoted and/or defended here gets to be a bit much. Heck, right here in this thread there is one person promoting it and two defending it already, and this whole forum loses integrity when hate is promoted in this way.

I agree. The issues are difficult enough without throwing propaganda/conspiracist/supremacist sources into the mix. Doing this just dumbs-down the level of forum integrity and nixes any opportunity for honest discussion.

 

[Andalublue]

Nice attempt at a diversion. From what I see, the OP is about the website ifamericansknew, not about CAMERA.

It wasn't degreez that brought CAMERA into the thread, mbig did. He dismissed one source by quoting another, then you try to disallow criticism of that "corroborative" source. That seems a little disingenuous. I have never come across either IfAmericansKnew or CAMERA, but any source used in debate should be open to investigation.

 

[Gardener]

It wasn't degreez that brought CAMERA into the thread, mbig did. He dismissed one source by quoting another, then you try to disallow criticism of that "corroborative" source. That seems a little disingenuous. I have never come across either IfAmericansKnew or CAMERA, but any source used in debate should be open to investigation.

He promoted the views of this man:

Donald Wagner gave interview to Holocaust-denying David Duke fan « Seismic Shock

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It wasn't degreez that brought CAMERA into the thread, mbig did. He dismissed one source by quoting another, then you try to disallow criticism of that "corroborative" source. That seems a little disingenuous. I have never come across either IfAmericansKnew or CAMERA, but any source used in debate should be open to investigation.

mbig may have brought it up, but Degreez started taking the thread away from the OP with his comments. My comment had nothing to do with disallowing criticism of CAMERA. It was about diverting things from ifamericaknew. Start a thread on CAMERA if you want. But that's not what this thread is about.

 

[Shayah]

... but any source used in debate should be open to investigation.

I don't think so. Lack of integrity and credibility is why bogus and biased websites are disallowed in the *Mainstream Media* section. This is probably the major reason why *BN* is the most popular/visited forum on this board. No bull**** sources are allowed.

 

[Andalublue]

I don't think so. Lack of integrity and credibility is why bogus and biased websites are disallowed in the *Mainstream Media* section. This is probably the major reason why *BN* is the most popular/visited forum on this board. No bull**** sources are allowed.

This isn't true. "Mainstream Media" disallows ALL websites whose principal activity is not news reporting, hence blogs and discussion sites are disallowed, such as Huffington Post or ABC News Blog. I'm all for limiting the use of bogus blogs and sites and calling them out when they are used, but "biased" blogs and sites...? Name me one blog or website dealing with politics that doesn't have a degree of bias. My definition of unbiased, or more accurately, politically balanced coverage (BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera) might be very different to yours. There may even be people on DP who think Fox News is politically balanced. Unlikely, but possible.

My point, and refutation of yours, is that nothing can be either taken as read that it is indeed unbiased, and not dismissed out of hand without checking out its claims and credentials. Some sites (I'm thinking Stormfront et al) might be very easy to dismiss quite quickly. Others, and this IfAmericaKnew might be one, I don't know, might present accurate data that cannot be immediately dismissed, even if one disputes the interpretation that they place on that data.

 

[Gardener]

. There may even be people on DP who think Fox News is politically balanced. Unlikely, but possible.

.

Which is as outrageous a position as those who think Al Jazeera is unbiased.

 

[Shayah]

...nothing can be either taken as read that it is indeed unbiased, and not dismissed out of hand without checking out its claims and credentials.

Perhaps you have oodles of leisure time to dissect arcane sources. I don't. I have found it to be a good practice to only use sources that are generally conceded by most members to be accurate and impartial. If someone should object to my original source (it has never happened yet), I will certainly provide additional sourcing from major media outlets spanning the globe.

To my mind, there is an irrefutable correlation between a member's reputation and their citation sources.

 

[gunner]

Degreez hasn't MADE a single claim. You have. The statistics are a misrepresentation that try to draw an inaccurate conclusion.

Degreez suggested 'on at least three occasions' pertaining to the refutation of anything from the IfAmericansKnew website. It seems no ones bothered trying. All I'm enquiring is, does the site espouse untruths with respect to its statistical data?

For example; has their been 6348 Palestinians killed compared with 1072 Israelis since Sept 29 2000....

Paul

 

[Agent Ferris]

In your opinion.

The international consensus is that the land is occupied by Israel.

If it's occupied then which sovereign states land are they occupying, because FYI Egypt and Jordan have relinquished claims to the territory?

 

[Andalublue]

Which is as outrageous a position as those who think Al Jazeera is unbiased.

No, I said that I found it politically balanced. My point was to say that no media can claim to be unbiased, but some make an effort to present balanced viewpoints, as Al Jazeera does.

 

[Andalublue]

Perhaps you have oodles of leisure time to dissect arcane sources. I don't. I have found it to be a good practice to only use sources that are generally conceded by most members to be accurate and impartial. If someone should object to my original source (it has never happened yet), I will certainly provide additional sourcing from major media outlets spanning the globe.

To my mind, there is an irrefutable correlation between a member's reputation and their citation sources.

That seems like a rather long-winded way of saying, "I'll use sources that I and my friends agree with, any others I'll rubbish". I'd have a fair bet that your opinion on the reputations of DP members is going to be quite different from many others'.

 

[mbig]

Then how can you call it a diversion? Unless, of course, you cannot refute anything from IfAmericansKnew.

Let's be clear.
My Link, CAMERA, DID have specific refutations of IfAmericansKnew. Whoppers in fact.
Degreez 'Donald Gardener' (actually Evangelical Anti-zionist 'Rev' Donald as I showed) had NO such specifics on CAMERA, just an opinion.
And the Rev DG writes for another infamous anti-Israel website WRMEA.
Degreez, because he Says he has me on ignore, can't acknowledge this and many others here apparently can't read.

 

[alexa]

Let's be clear.
My Link, CAMERA, DID have specific refutations of IfAmericansKnew. Whoppers in fact.
Degreez 'Donald Gardener' (actually Evangelical Anti-zionist 'Rev' Donald as I showed) had NO such specifics on CAMERA, just an opinion.
And the Rev DG writes for another infamous anti-Israel website WRMEA.
Degreez, because he Says he has me on ignore, can't acknowledge this and many others here apparently can't read.

Problem with this is that Camera has a pro Israeli bias. What you seem to be saying is that a pro Israeli bias is correct and a non pro Israeli bias is incorrect.

No one has yet answered Paul's post 38

Degreez suggested 'on at least three occasions' pertaining to the refutation of anything from the IfAmericansKnew website. It seems no ones bothered trying. All I'm enquiring is, does the site espouse untruths with respect to its statistical data?

For example; has their been 6348 Palestinians killed compared with 1072 Israelis since Sept 29 2000....

Paul

 

[mbig]

Problem with this is that Camera has a pro Israeli bias. What you seem to be saying is that a pro Israeli bias is correct and a non pro Israeli bias is incorrect.

NO. You have a simple but amazing logic problem in demands and expectations
My 'biased' site showed things posted by IFAmericansKnew/Weir that are so preposterous and bigoted (such as the accusation that Israel was the Invader in 1948, and it committed a Holocaust) while There's not One specific item refuted from media watchdog CAMERA.
Are we clear Yet?

No one has yet answered Paul's post 38

Wiki, citing the Not pro-Israel B'tselem, puts it more like 5500 to 1000+ since the intifada. (5/31/10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada#cite_note-casualties-0

But SO WHAT!
I dealt with this lopsided stat and inference a few days go
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-fire-rockets-west-bank-7.html#post1058829238
In fact, the use/abuse of stats is a specialty of 'IF'.

So they are losing more people in an Intifada/WAR They Started. Yes and.....????
Probably a better ratio than they had in the other wars... 1948/1967/1973.

Now. I've answered the 'stat', YOU answer the Whoppers about 1948, etc etc etc I posted on page one.

 

[alexa]

Wiki, citing the Not pro-Israel B'tselem, puts it more like 5500 to 1000+ since the intifada. (5/31/10)
Second Intifada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But SO WHAT!
I dealt with this identical stat and inference a few days go
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-fire-rockets-west-bank-7.html#post1058829238
In fact, the use/abuse of stats is a specialty of 'IF'.

So they are losing more people in an Intifada/WAR They Started. Yes and.....????
Probably a better ration than they had in the faster wars of 1948/1967/1973.

Now. I've answered the 'stat', YOU answer the Whoppers about 1948, etc etc etc I posted on page one.

I haven't had time to look at that but the reality is that all people have been talking about on this thread in relation to ifamericansknew is the statistics. The rest would be the subject of another thread.

The UN from 2000-2007 gives the no of deaths as follows

Of those killed in the conflict, 4,228 have been Palestinians, 1,024 Israelis, and 63 foreign citizens. For every person killed, approximately seven were also injured

Israeli-Palestinian fatalities since 2000 - OCHA Special Focus (31 August 2007)

With 2008 and Cast Lead that would suggest that the Number was probably nearer what Ifamericansknew said.

 

[mbig]

I haven't had time to look at that but the reality is that all people have been talking about on this thread in relation to ifamericansknew is the statistics. The rest would be the subject of another thread.

The UN from 2000-2007 gives the no of deaths as follows


Israeli-Palestinian fatalities since 2000 - OCHA Special Focus (31 August 2007)

With 2008 and Cast Lead that would suggest that the Number was probably nearer what Ifamericansknew said.

We'll we look forward to your reply when you "have more time". (which means 'bye-bye forever'/ooops' in your lingo)
Because as it stands now.. IFAmericansKnew has been Gutted and CAMERA untouched. And the Casualty stat.. a big "So What".
As I and my article linked in in my last said.
Does suffering more casulaties make you right or more moral?
That's precisely the idiotic/biased inference some (like 'If') make despite the FACT the Palestinians started and continued said Intifada/WAR quite happily/cynically for the PR it generated.

 

[jujuman13]

Did you not read the first sentence of my post?

I think almost everyone who is reading this thread has read whatever you have posted.

Amazingly we also understand what you are attempting to belabour us into agreeing.

 

[jujuman13]

It wasn't degreez that brought CAMERA into the thread, mbig did. He dismissed one source by quoting another, then you try to disallow criticism of that "corroborative" source. That seems a little disingenuous. I have never come across either IfAmericansKnew or CAMERA, but any source used in debate should be open to investigation.

Nothing I have read in this particular thread has sought to disallow criticism of any source.
Disagreement perhaps, but disallow, sorry I have not read that.

 

[Apocalypse]

The statistics are accurate, they are however trying to paint a surreal image, and some of the questions that lead to those statistics are bizarre.
Take for example the prisoners statistics, "how many other-side's prisoners are held by each side"
Yes, only one Israeli is held by Hamas(Gilad Shalit), but he is being held illegally and has been held illegally for 4 years now. He is held in inhumane conditions and is not allowed to be seen by his family or pretty much anyone else, not even the red cross.
On the other hand, the thousands of Palestinian prisoners are held for actual crimes committed by those thousands of people, they are allowed to be seen by visitors, and the conditions they are held in are very humane.
The majority of those prisoners, also, are short-term prisoners, that come and go after a few weeks. The rest are actual terrorists, people who've murdered or have plotted to murder scores of innocents.

Besides that if anyone here is really funny enough to even suggest that this source is not biased, simply check the opinion articles and the actual activity.

 

[joe246]

cant we all get along? in my opinion there both terrorists