Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 12:47:43 GMT -5
The government selling stuff stolen by the government to private buyers: The Free Market at its best.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2019 13:37:55 GMT -5
The government selling stuff stolen by the government to private buyers: The Free Market at its best.
McAnswer, can't you recognize a propaganda piece when you see one?
This same article was printed in several other sources. None of these articles bothered to give the Israeli side. That alone should be a dead giveaway that this is a hit piece and not a news article. Most real news articles will at least say they tried to contact the other side for their comments.
I finally found one that did:
"Israel argues that the schools had been constructed in Area C without obtaining a prior permission from the so-called Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a unit in Israel’s ministry of military affairs that oversees civil matters in the Palestinian territories."
Now who made the donation in the first place? The European Union, which is a government.
Did you ever hear of a government agency or bureaucracy who didn't follow the rules, fill out all the required forms, and get permission from the agency in charge?
Government bureaucrats live by the rules.
All of a sudden we have an EU bureaucracy that sends a whole school without getting proper permission first. Not very likely.
Most likely, this was done deliberately just to create an incident and get a few anti-Israeli articles in a few papers.
Did you notice that outside of a couple of British papers and Arab press, no other media source picked this story up.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 13:16:10 GMT -5
The government selling stuff stolen by the government to private buyers: The Free Market at its best.
McAnswer, can't you recognize a propaganda piece when you see one? Ad Hominem. Do you dispute the facts presented in the article? Actually, the article says this: "Asked to comment on Thursday afternoon, the Civil Administration said it needed more time to respond."They did contact the other side. It helps of course when one reads the article before commenting!  Of course you would take the government's word for it! Governments can do no wrong, after all! But you have no evidence to back this up. You make dogmatic assertions without providing any facts to support them. What does the nationality or ethnicity of a journalist have to do with this? Are you saying that Arabs never write objective facts? It sounds like you are. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 13:44:02 GMT -5
McAnswer, can't you recognize a propaganda piece when you see one? Ad Hominem. It's not an Ad Hominem because I backed it up with facts later in my post. Did you bother to read other articles on this subject? The one I posted said that the government was contacted and claimed the proper forms had never been filled out. Where did I say that I was taking the government's word for it? I didn't. But why are you saying that the Israeli government's claim is automatically wrong? Do you have any evidence at all that they lied, or are you just assuming it? My explanation is just as good as yours. Your article strongly implies that the Israeli government is deliberately cruel to Arab children. The case is just as strong that someone deliberately set up this incident in order to show Israel in a bad light. Unless of course you want us to believe that EU government bureaucrats were giving the gift of a school building without filling out the proper forms. LOL! I also mentioned the British press. Are you also going to accuse me of being anti British? I was referring to the political views of the sources. Both the British and Arab press tend to be anti-Israeli. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 18:36:59 GMT -5
It's not an Ad Hominem because I backed it up with facts later in my post. There is absolutely no "facts" in your post that point to this being a "propaganda piece", as you claim. Do you believe the government based on their say-so, yes or no? What "explanation"? I just gave the facts as reported by a credible and serious journalistic source. You are the one who spun this off into a worldwide antisemitic conspiracy. So their nationality and ethnicity drives Arabs to hate all Jews? Would you say that this is based on their genetics, or more on their upbringing in an inferior culture? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 21:45:09 GMT -5
It's not an Ad Hominem because I backed it up with facts later in my post. There is absolutely no "facts" in your post that point to this being a "propaganda piece", as you claim. It's not the facts that were given. It's the facts that were omitted. How could a government agency send a whole building to another country without following proper bureaucratic procedures? No. But I don't blindly believe the EU government's account either. Do you? You didn't give all the facts. And neither did your source. No I didn't. All I did was point out that the media account has plenty of holes in it. Strange. How come you are not mentioning the British? How come you're not accusing me of saying that British genetics, upbringing, and culture drives them to hate Jews? My actual comment was about both the British and Arab press. Both have tended to be biased against Israel in the past. And the press has nothing to do with ethnicity. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:34:46 GMT -5
There is absolutely no "facts" in your post that point to this being a "propaganda piece", as you claim. It's not the facts that were given. It's the facts that were omitted. We will never know everything. But what we do know of the case is correctly presented in the article; and you have so far failed to provide any evidence that refutes its claims. And based on your ignorance of these circumstances, you are concluding that the EU must be part of an international conspiracy to make Israel look bad. It's not the EU government's account, it's the facts as reported by a reputable journalistic source. No, that's not "all you did". You literally called this article a "propaganda piece" and implied that it was deliberately written as a hit piece against Israel. You are inventing a journalistic conspiracy against Israel, and I say "inventing" because none of your allegiations are based on facts or evidence at hand. Again, no mention of facts or evidence, only unprovewn dogmatic assertions. Then why did you bring it up? Do you believe that being of British nationality or Arab ethnicity has anything to do with the quality of a journalist's work, yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 15:44:33 GMT -5
It's not the facts that were given. It's the facts that were omitted. We will never know everything. But what we do know of the case is correctly presented in the article; and you have so far failed to provide any evidence that refutes its claims. But I did show that their story was incomplete. The article didn't explain why the EU agency never filed the proper forms. No. I simply raised a question that the authors of the story failed to ask. As I demonstrated, all the relevant facts were not reported. I didn't "invent" anything. All I did was point out that the article has holes in it. Did the reporter bother to ask the EU agency that donated the school if the proper papers were sent? No. So you are actually claiming that both the Arab press and British press have never had an anti-Israeli bias? Fine. Then please give some examples of articles they published in favor of Israel. I didn't. All I did was mention both the British and Arab press. You were the one who brought up ethnicity. And you only mentioned the Arabs. Why not point out that I also mentioned the British? No, of course not. But political views can easily have a bearing on their articles. Or do you deny this? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 16:45:09 GMT -5
We will never know everything. But what we do know of the case is correctly presented in the article; and you have so far failed to provide any evidence that refutes its claims. But I did show that their story was incomplete. The article didn't explain why the EU agency never filed the proper forms. The article doesn't explain because it does not mention that. That is an original addition on your part, based on your uncritical and unexamined belief in the accuracy of the Israeli government's story. You invented a conspiracy against Israel by British and Arab "propaganda" journalists and now you are in full backpedal mode because you haven't found shit to support your claims. If you can't back up your assertions with proof, then they are, by definition, unproven. Do you have proof for your claim that British and Arab press are anti-Israel, yes or no? But you did: Did you notice that outside of a couple of British papers and Arab press, no other media source picked this story up. Bob
when I called you out: LOL! I also mentioned the British press. Are you also going to accuse me of being anti British? I was referring to the political views of the sources. Both the British and Arab press tend to be anti-Israeli. Bob But somebody who is inclined against the Israeli government will not write truthfully. Isn't that what you are trying to imply? That not believing the Israeli government's story is a sign of shoddy work and bad journalism? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 20:25:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 14:43:24 GMT -5
And yet you blindly accept the Israeli government's story as fact. Why is that, Bob?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 14:45:46 GMT -5
And I never said I accepted the Israeli government's story. But you accepted it. And I wonder: Why? What did you find compelling about the Israeli government's story that was absent in the Guardian's article?
And what made you believe the government's story so thoroughly that you would accuse the article of being a "propaganda piece" against Israel? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 17:28:43 GMT -5
And yet you blindly accept the Israeli government's story as fact. Why is that, Bob? Not true. Where did I say that I accepted the Israeli government's story as fact? I didn't You made that up.
All I did was mention their explanation and point out that the reporter never followed up on it to see if it was true or false.
A good reporter would have gone back to the EU bureaucrats and asked them if they filled out the proper forms or not. This reporter decided to publish the story before doing that.
The reporter wasn't doing their job. As a result, the article was incomplete.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 17:38:42 GMT -5
And I never said I accepted the Israeli government's story. But you accepted it. Really? Where did I say I accepted it? I didn't.
And you seem to be automatically rejecting the Israeli government's explanation. Why are you doing that?
But I didn't find anything "compelling" about the Israeli government's claim. My point was that the reporter didn't investigate it. All it would have taken would have been a phone call to the EU government office to find the bureaucrat in charge. Apparently your reporter didn't bother to make that little bit of extra effort. Complex Question Fallacy. I didn't believe the government's story. I simply asked why it wasn't checked out by the reporter. Now either the reporter is a bad reporter, or the EU office that donated the school is so incompetent that it didn't bother to fill out the proper papers before donating an entire school...or all this was done deliberately to create more anti-Israeli propaganda. In any event, my claim is the article itself did not give enough information to come to any definitive conclusion. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 5:00:50 GMT -5
Really? Where did I say I accepted it? I didn't. McAnswer, can't you recognize a propaganda piece when you see one? This same article was printed in several other sources. None of these articles bothered to give the Israeli side. That alone should be a dead giveaway that this is a hit piece and not a news article. Most real news articles will at least say they tried to contact the other side for their comments. I finally found one that did: "Israel argues that the schools had been constructed in Area C without obtaining a prior permission from the so-called Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a unit in Israel’s ministry of military affairs that oversees civil matters in the Palestinian territories." Now who made the donation in the first place? The European Union, which is a government.
Did you ever hear of a government agency or bureaucracy who didn't follow the rules, fill out all the required forms, and get permission from the agency in charge?
Government bureaucrats live by the rules.
All of a sudden we have an EU bureaucracy that sends a whole school without getting proper permission first. Not very likely. Most likely, this was done deliberately just to create an incident and get a few anti-Israeli articles in a few papers. Did you notice that outside of a couple of British papers and Arab press, no other media source picked this story up. Bob
If you didn't post the Israeli's story because you believe it's true, then why did you post it at all? What was the point of linking to an article you didn't believe to be true? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 11:34:59 GMT -5
Really? Where did I say I accepted it? I didn't. McAnswer, can't you recognize a propaganda piece when you see one? This same article was printed in several other sources. None of these articles bothered to give the Israeli side. That alone should be a dead giveaway that this is a hit piece and not a news article. Most real news articles will at least say they tried to contact the other side for their comments. I finally found one that did: "Israel argues that the schools had been constructed in Area C without obtaining a prior permission from the so-called Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a unit in Israel’s ministry of military affairs that oversees civil matters in the Palestinian territories." Now who made the donation in the first place? The European Union, which is a government.
Did you ever hear of a government agency or bureaucracy who didn't follow the rules, fill out all the required forms, and get permission from the agency in charge?
Government bureaucrats live by the rules.
All of a sudden we have an EU bureaucracy that sends a whole school without getting proper permission first. Not very likely. Most likely, this was done deliberately just to create an incident and get a few anti-Israeli articles in a few papers. Did you notice that outside of a couple of British papers and Arab press, no other media source picked this story up. Bob
If you didn't post the Israeli's story because you believe it's true, then why did you post it at all? What was the point of linking to an article you didn't believe to be true?
Easy one. I was simply investigating. And that means I have to examine both sides.
That's the proper thing to do before you can reach a conclusion.
And the conclusion I reached was that the original article had too many unanswered questions for anyone to reach a definitive answer about the motives of the Israeli government in this case.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 15:13:05 GMT -5
Then you don't believe that the Israeli government's version of the story is correct?
You don't believe that the Guardian article was a propaganda hit piece written by biased journalists to make Israel look bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 16:09:40 GMT -5
Then you don't believe that the Israeli government's version of the story is correct? I have no idea if the Israeli government's version is correct or not. The article didn't give enough information on this to reach a conclusion. Again, there is not enough information given in the article to reach a definitive conclusion. The possibility that the reporter just did a poor job of reporting cannot be excluded. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 17:57:42 GMT -5
Then you don't believe that the Israeli government's version of the story is correct? I have no idea if the Israeli government's version is correct or not. The article didn't give enough information on this to reach a conclusion. Again, there is not enough information given in the article to reach a definitive conclusion. The possibility that the reporter just did a poor job of reporting cannot be excluded. Bob And yet you called the article a "propaganda piece" and accused British and Arab journalists of being antisemites. You sure seem to form very strong opinions regardless of your actual knowledge of a case! |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 19:32:45 GMT -5
I have no idea if the Israeli government's version is correct or not. The article didn't give enough information on this to reach a conclusion. Again, there is not enough information given in the article to reach a definitive conclusion. The possibility that the reporter just did a poor job of reporting cannot be excluded. Bob And yet you called the article a "propaganda piece" and accused British and Arab journalists of being antisemites. You sure seem to form very strong opinions regardless of your actual knowledge of a case!
The original article had all the earmarks of a propaganda piece.
Here's a story about harm being done to poor little children.
No one checked to see if the Israeli side of the story was true and that the right forms weren't filled out by the EU. The article didn't give enough information for anyone to see what was really going on here.
Conclusion: Either the story was a setup to make the Israelis look bad, of the reporter who wrote the story did a bad job of investigation.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 15:40:22 GMT -5
And yet you called the article a "propaganda piece" and accused British and Arab journalists of being antisemites. You sure seem to form very strong opinions regardless of your actual knowledge of a case! The original article had all the earmarks of a propaganda piece. What are these "earmarks of a propaganda piece"? So far, it sounds very much like a weasle word so you can claim they are lying, but don't have to demonstrate that they are lying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 15:52:53 GMT -5
No one checked to see if the Israeli side of the story was true and that the right forms weren't filled out by the EU. The article didn't give enough information for anyone to see what was really going on here. Conclusion: Either the story was a setup to make the Israelis look bad, of the reporter who wrote the story did a bad job of investigation. Bob
Actually, the article clearly stated that they had asked the Israeli government to comment on the case. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 18:40:49 GMT -5
The original article had all the earmarks of a propaganda piece. What are these "earmarks of a propaganda piece"? So far, it sounds very much like a weasle word so you can claim they are lying, but don't have to demonstrate that they are lying.
The article was missing information.
Why didn't the reporter check with the EU office that donated the school to see if all the proper forms were filled out as the Israeli government claimed?
If they weren't filled out, then the question becomes:Why not? Was this a mistake? Or was it done deliberately?
If the forms were filled out, then the reporter should have gone back to the Israeli government and asked more questions.
So either the reporter did a rush job just to get the article in print. Or the reporter was hiding something.
One of these has to be the case.
There was not sufficient information in the article to draw a definitive conclusion.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 6:37:34 GMT -5
What are these "earmarks of a propaganda piece"? So far, it sounds very much like a weasle word so you can claim they are lying, but don't have to demonstrate that they are lying. The article was missing information. Why didn't the reporter check with the EU office that donated the school to see if all the proper forms were filled out as the Israeli government claimed? If they weren't filled out, then the question becomes:Why not? Was this a mistake? Or was it done deliberately? If the forms were filled out, then the reporter should have gone back to the Israeli government and asked more questions. So either the reporter did a rush job just to get the article in print. Or the reporter was hiding something. One of these has to be the case. There was not sufficient information in the article to draw a definitive conclusion. Bob
Nirvana Fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyNo article will ever provide the full totality of all possible information pertaining to an event. That doesn't make every single article a "propaganda piece" or even "biased" in the sense you're using the term.
Fact is that you have failed to provide is any indication of bias on part of the reporters.
They did all they could with their limited resources (time is a resource in media).
They simply came to a conclusion you don't like, i.e. that the Israeli government did something bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 10:50:05 GMT -5
The article was missing information. Why didn't the reporter check with the EU office that donated the school to see if all the proper forms were filled out as the Israeli government claimed? If they weren't filled out, then the question becomes:Why not? Was this a mistake? Or was it done deliberately? If the forms were filled out, then the reporter should have gone back to the Israeli government and asked more questions. So either the reporter did a rush job just to get the article in print. Or the reporter was hiding something. One of these has to be the case. There was not sufficient information in the article to draw a definitive conclusion. Nirvana Fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyNo article will ever provide the full totality of all possible information pertaining to an event. That doesn't make every single article a "propaganda piece" or even "biased" in the sense you're using the term. Fact is that you have failed to provide is any indication of bias on part of the reporters. They did all they could with their limited resources (time is a resource in media). They simply came to a conclusion you don't like, i.e. that the Israeli government did something bad. Wrong. A Nirvana Fallacy is when you make unrealistic demands for information. All I did here was point out that the reporter should have made a couple of extra phone calls to the EU government office to verify that they did fill out the right customs forms. And that is not an impossible demand, is it? In fact, a little extra effort to verify information is what a good reporter should be normally doing as part of their job! So this in not a Nirvana Fallacy by any stretch of the imagination. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 18:24:31 GMT -5
Nirvana Fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyNo article will ever provide the full totality of all possible information pertaining to an event. That doesn't make every single article a "propaganda piece" or even "biased" in the sense you're using the term. Fact is that you have failed to provide is any indication of bias on part of the reporters. They did all they could with their limited resources (time is a resource in media). They simply came to a conclusion you don't like, i.e. that the Israeli government did something bad. Wrong. A Nirvana Fallacy is when you make unrealistic demands for information. And calling a journalistic article "propaganda" because they didn't get literally every single possible piece of information is realistic? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 19:47:02 GMT -5
Wrong. A Nirvana Fallacy is when you make unrealistic demands for information. And calling a journalistic article "propaganda" because they didn't get literally every single possible piece of information is realistic?
Making a couple of phone calls (which is part of a reporter's job anyway) is not the same as asking for "every possible piece of information."
And didn't you say that I can't draw any conclusions about "leftists" without doing a survey of all of them?
("He made a claim that he did not back up, because Dolezal and Warren are not the only two leftists, and he has not demonstrated that they are representative of every other leftist, either. He simply implied it without further evidence for his claim." from the "Want to 'Prove' Anything? Try 'Social Construction' " thread).
What's the matter? An impossible amount of research is good for my sources. But making a few simple phone calls is just too much for your sources?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 14:12:42 GMT -5
And calling a journalistic article "propaganda" because they didn't get literally every single possible piece of information is realistic? Making a couple of phone calls (which is part of a reporter's job anyway) is not the same as asking for "every possible piece of information." But they did make the phone calls. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 14:56:56 GMT -5
Making a couple of phone calls (which is part of a reporter's job anyway) is not the same as asking for "every possible piece of information." But they did make the phone calls.
Where in the article you posted did it say that the reporter made follow-up phone calls to ask the EU if they indeed filled out all the proper forms?
I didn't see any mention of follow-up phone calls.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 17:26:33 GMT -5
But they did make the phone calls. Where in the article you posted did it say that the reporter made follow-up phone calls to ask the EU if they indeed filled out all the proper forms?
I didn't see any mention of follow-up phone calls. Bob
So you do after all believe the Israeli government's story about allegedly wrong forms having been filled out.
|
|
Of course the article didn't mention it. That was exactly my point. The article should have mentioned this missing information.