|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 19:03:23 GMT -5
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.
I have no way to tell if the Israeli government's story was true or not. The reporter never checked it out.
Which is why that article was incomplete and no conclusion can be drawn from it.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 6:41:15 GMT -5
So you do after all believe the Israeli government's story about allegedly wrong forms having been filled out.
I have no way to tell if the Israeli government's story was true or not. But you believe it anyway. QED.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:41:15 GMT -5
I have no way to tell if the Israeli government's story was true or not. But you believe it anyway. QED. No I don't. There is no evidence either way so what basis would I have for believing it?
The matter is simply not proved either way.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 11:47:34 GMT -5
But you believe it anyway. QED. No I don't. There is no evidence either way so what basis would I have for believing it? The matter is simply not proved either way.
Bob
Then why do you keep bringing it up as a supposed indicator that the Guardian article was a propaganda hit piece against Israel?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 19:45:00 GMT -5
No I don't. There is no evidence either way so what basis would I have for believing it? The matter is simply not proved either way.
Bob
Then why do you keep bringing it up as a supposed indicator that the Guardian article was a propaganda hit piece against Israel?
I don't "keep bringing it up." I brought it up one at the beginning of the thread.
When I looked at the article more closely, I saw that the story was incomplete because the reporter didn't follow up with some simple phone calls.
Would the EU claim that they did fill out all the papers and the Israeli government was lying? We may never know because the reporter didn't do a through job.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 22:01:33 GMT -5
Then why do you keep bringing it up as a supposed indicator that the Guardian article was a propaganda hit piece against Israel? I don't "keep bringing it up." I brought it up one at the beginning of the thread. Where you wrongly accused the Guardian of producing an anti-Israel hit piece, yes. But that is complete nonsense, the article says very clearly that they did contact the Israeli government, they just couldn't get anything useful out of them. The only source for these wrongly filled out forms is the Israeli government, which you claim you don't believe but keep fielding as proof that the article is biased. Clearly you'd rather believe some Israeli bureucrat without proof, than accept a narrative that depicts Israel's policy against Palestinians as anything less than virtuous.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 23:11:19 GMT -5
I don't "keep bringing it up." I brought it up one at the beginning of the thread. Where you wrongly accused the Guardian of producing an anti-Israel hit piece, yes. Right. I didn't have conclusive evidence that it was a hit piece. That wasn't what I was talking about. I pointed out that the reporter didn't contact the EU government to see if, in fact, the EU bureaucrats didn't submit the right forms ans the Israelis claimed. Well, the reporter didn't make any more calls to the EU. None were mentioned. As usual, you keep claiming I said things but you never bother to cut and paste what I actually said. Here is what I did say: "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?" Posted June 4, 2:44 PM I never said I accepted the Israeli government's version. What I did say is that the reporter should have investigated further so that we would have evidence one way or the other. The reporter just didn't do a through job. As a result, we don't know all the facts of this case and cannot come to a definite conclusion. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:03:22 GMT -5
Where you wrongly accused the Guardian of producing an anti-Israel hit piece, yes. Right. I didn't have conclusive evidence that it was a hit piece. You didn't have any evidence at all. But you still went for it, because it was the Israeli government that was being portrayed as not perfect and virtuous in its dealings with the Arab savages. The sole source for your claim comes from the press release from the Israeli government, which you swallowed hook line and sinker. Ah yes, sorry, I keep forgetting that you are a liar. 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
Here you are, accepting the Israeli government's claim and claiming that "this was done deliberately just to create an incident and get a few anti-Israeli articles in a few papers", which you keep claiming you definitely did not say or believe in spite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 13, 2019 15:20:01 GMT -5
Right. I didn't have conclusive evidence that it was a hit piece. You didn't have any evidence at all. Claimed but not demonstrated. No. I went for it because the article seemed to have some loopholes. And in fact it did. No. The sole source was the article itself. The reporter specifically that the Israeli government was contacted. But the reporter never said that the EU was contacted a second time to check out the Israeli story. Read the article again. Where does it say that the EU was contacted a second time to check out the Israeli claims? It doesn't. In other words, you can't find anything to refute what I say so you are throwing a tantrum. Where did I say I accepted the Israeli government's claim? I didn't. Where did I say that this was definitely done deliberately? I didn't. I said that "most Likely" it was done deliberately. And you totally ignored my later posts where I said there was not sufficient evidence to make your case. In fact, there aren't. And why do my personal opinions matter here? The fact is that the article does not give enough evidence to make your case, and that is true no matter what anyone's personal opinion happens to be. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 12:04:10 GMT -5
You didn't have any evidence at all. Claimed but not demonstrated. No. I went for it because the article seemed to have some loopholes. And in fact it did. If we accept that Israel's account is correct, which you are argueing and continue to argue. Read the article again. Where does it say anything about wrong paperwork? That claim was introduced by the Israeli government. You're just parrotting the government's line. But you know that already. You're just doing your usual song and dance again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 12:13:02 GMT -5
Where did I say I accepted the Israeli government's claim? I didn't. I didn't claim that you literally said "I accept the Israeli government's claim", I claimed that you accepted it, which you did by parrotting the government's line about wrongly filed paperwork.You literally called the article a "propaganda piece", do you think I'm a moron? If you really expect me to swallow this bullshit line then you must be one. You saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Because they are the foundation for your objection to this article, alongside your racist prejudices against Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 13:40:28 GMT -5
Where did I say I accepted the Israeli government's claim? I didn't. I didn't claim that you literally said "I accept the Israeli government's claim", I claimed that you accepted it, which you did by parrotting the government's line about wrongly filed paperwork.But I didn't "parrot their line" at all. I simply reported what they said. My point was that the reporter didn't follow up on the Israeli reply by making a call the the EU. And that's true. So how is that "parroting a line?" Yes. But on closer examination, I changed my view. The article you posted simply did not have enough evidence to draw any definite conclusion. So far, you haven't presented any counter-evidence to refute that. Yes. And the same thing holds for you, doesn't it? So far, you have not presented any evidence to show my later view is false. The reporter simply didn't do a through job. And all the reporter had to do was make a couple of follow-up phone calls! Genetic Fallacy. If you can demonstrate that I only believe one and one add to two because my first grade teacher made me memorize it, does that mean one and one are NOT two? Of course not. Even if you could demonstrate that I had a prejudice against Arabs (which I don't BTW) that still doesn't disprove the fact that the reporter didn't do a complete job and provide enough evidence.And oh yes. Arabs are a nationality, not a "race." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:33:15 GMT -5
Yes. And the same thing holds for you, doesn't it? Of course. That's why I posted an article by a reputable independent journalistic source. Instead of, say, literal government propaganda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:38:35 GMT -5
By the way, the article you posted says this: I wonder why you think that doesn't count as an answer to your question. Is it because the article says bad things about the love of your life, the Israeli military regime that is currently controlling West Bank?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 18:38:43 GMT -5
Yes. And the same thing holds for you, doesn't it? Of course. That's why I posted an article by a reputable independent journalistic source. Instead of, say, literal government propaganda.
Too bad you didn't read the article critically. Then you might have noticed that the reporter didn't do a complete job to confirm the story.
That's a fact. And you have not shown any evidence to contradict it.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 18:57:59 GMT -5
By the way, the article you posted says this: I wonder why you think that doesn't count as an answer to your question. Is it because the article says bad things about the love of your life, the Israeli military regime that is currently controlling West Bank?
Actually, that does answer my question. And that is clear evidence that Israel's policies toward towards the Arabs in the West Bank are detrimental and should be changed.
Congratulations. You have proved your point.
Now doesn't that show a little bit of research to get the FACTS is better than simply hurling insults?
And BTW, you still haven't shown that the article you originally posted wasn't flawed.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:43:33 GMT -5
Now doesn't that show a little bit of research to get the FACTS is better than simply hurling insults?
Yes, maybe you should do it sometime! Just in case you missed it, that paragraph came from the article you posted in defense of the Israeli government.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 10:32:14 GMT -5
Now doesn't that show a little bit of research to get the FACTS is better than simply hurling insults?
Yes, maybe you should do it sometime! Just in case you missed it, that paragraph came from the article you posted in defense of the Israeli government.
Yes. I know. I omitted that part when I posted it just to see if you would pick it up.
Now do you see the value of checking sources for FACTS instead of merely making insults?
And BTW, you still haven't demonstrated the article you originally posted wasn't flawed.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:43:57 GMT -5
Yes, maybe you should do it sometime! Just in case you missed it, that paragraph came from the article you posted in defense of the Israeli government. Yes. I know. I omitted that part when I posted it just to see if you would pick it up.
So you were being dishonest on purpose.
Why do you lie so much?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:31:19 GMT -5
Yes. I know. I omitted that part when I posted it just to see if you would pick it up.
So you were being dishonest on purpose.
Why do you lie so much?
Nope. I was teaching you a lesson. Do a little research before you open your mouth.
And keeping silent is not a lie.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 14:05:00 GMT -5
So you were being dishonest on purpose.
Why do you lie so much?
Nope. I was teaching you a lesson. Do a little research before you open your mouth.
And keeping silent is not a lie. Bob
So you were teaching me a lesson by performing as an idiot who doesn't do research? Very crafty!
Does that mean you didn't believe anything you wrote in this thread?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 14:52:42 GMT -5
Nope. I was teaching you a lesson. Do a little research before you open your mouth.
And keeping silent is not a lie. Bob
So you were teaching me a lesson by performing as an idiot who doesn't do research? Very crafty!
Does that mean you didn't believe anything you wrote in this thread?
But I did do the research. That's how I knew the article had information that supported your views.
And of course I do believe the main point I was making: The article you posted did not give enough information to draw any definite conclusions.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 5:36:30 GMT -5
So you were teaching me a lesson by performing as an idiot who doesn't do research? Very crafty! Does that mean you didn't believe anything you wrote in this thread?
But I did do the research. That's how I knew the article had information that supported your views. And of course I do believe the main point I was making: The article you posted did not give enough information to draw any definite conclusions. Bob
So you knew that the article undermined your belief in Israeli government as a primary source, yet you still uncritically toed the government's line in spite of that. You are right, you weren't just playing an idiot who doesn't do research.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 16, 2019 10:39:59 GMT -5
But I did do the research. That's how I knew the article had information that supported your views. And of course I do believe the main point I was making: The article you posted did not give enough information to draw any definite conclusions. Bob
So you knew that the article undermined your belief in Israeli government as a primary source, yet you still uncritically toed the government's line in spite of that. You are right, you weren't just playing an idiot who doesn't do research.
Nope. I didn't "uncritically toed the government's line" at all. What I did do was point out that the article you posted was flawed due to incomplete research by the reporter. And that's true. The article you posted simply didn't provide enough evidence, did it?
Calling me an idiot is merely an Ad Hominem that doesn't change that fact.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:39:34 GMT -5
So you knew that the article undermined your belief in Israeli government as a primary source, yet you still uncritically toed the government's line in spite of that. You are right, you weren't just playing an idiot who doesn't do research. Nope. I didn't "uncritically toed the government's line" at all. What I did do was point out that the article you posted was flawed due to incomplete research by the reporter. And that's true. The article you posted simply didn't provide enough evidence, did it? You literally called it "a propaganda piece" even after you already knew that they were correct as the second article supported all of the Guardian's points. So your entire position in this discussion was a lie from top to bottom, and not even a self serving one because it made you look like a stooge for the Israeli government who can't even do research properly! And by the way, a journalistic pieces doesn't have to be perfect in order to not be propaganda, so you saying "I said the article was flawed" actually undermines your own argument re: the article being an anti-Israel hit piece.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 15:25:42 GMT -5
Nope. I didn't "uncritically toed the government's line" at all. What I did do was point out that the article you posted was flawed due to incomplete research by the reporter. And that's true. The article you posted simply didn't provide enough evidence, did it? You literally called it "a propaganda piece" even after you already knew that they were correct as the second article supported all of the Guardian's points. So your entire position in this discussion was a lie from top to bottom, and not even a self serving one because it made you look like a stooge for the Israeli government who can't even do research properly! And by the way, a journalistic pieces doesn't have to be perfect in order to not be propaganda, so you saying "I said the article was flawed" actually undermines your own argument re: the article being an anti-Israel hit piece.
What "lie" did I say? If you look at what I actually said, you will see that I asked a question. And questions are not statements of fact.
And in subsequent posts, I modified my opinion and I only claimed that the article you posted didn't give enough information to draw any conclusion.
That was true. The article you posted didn't give enough information, did it?
You had to rely on an article I found to prove your point.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:12:30 GMT -5
And in subsequent posts, I modified my opinion and I only claimed that the article you posted didn't give enough information to draw any conclusion. Which turned out to be another lie, since you already knew that there was enough information to confirm that the Guardian had said the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:13:50 GMT -5
And in subsequent posts, I modified my opinion and I only claimed that the article you posted didn't give enough information to draw any conclusion. That was true. The article you posted didn't give enough information, did it? That was your claim, yes, and you have still not shown any support for it beyond "I believe in the Israeli government".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 19:58:04 GMT -5
And in subsequent posts, I modified my opinion and I only claimed that the article you posted didn't give enough information to draw any conclusion. Which turned out to be another lie, since you already knew that there was enough information to confirm that the Guardian had said the truth.
Read the posts again. All I did was point out that the article you posted didn't give enough information to make your case. That was (and is) true. The article you posted did not give enough information.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 20:00:14 GMT -5
And in subsequent posts, I modified my opinion and I only claimed that the article you posted didn't give enough information to draw any conclusion. That was true. The article you posted didn't give enough information, did it? That was your claim, yes, and you have still not shown any support for it beyond "I believe in the Israeli government".
What? No supporting quotes from my posts?
That's because there are none.
I never said that I believed the Israeli government. You made it up.
Bob
|
|