• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flotilla passengers: Go back to Auschwitz

Both sources draw their clips from the same source, the IDF.

/BLINK

Wait a tick... if say the DOD produced a Tape of... say another 9/11 type attack, you wouldn't accuse the NYTimes and the WSJ of bias if they both used clips from the DOD? Would you not trust the story till say... an EU News organization was on the story???
If you find an AP news story at Yahoo, get asked for another source, and provide another AP story carried by another paper, both are ultimately AP as the source if you follow.

But by your above logic, if an AP story used the IDF clip... the AP story would be invalid. Your logic is flawwwwwwwwed.
 
/BLINK

Wait a tick... if say the DOD produced a Tape of... say another 9/11 type attack, you wouldn't accuse the NYTimes and the WSJ of bias if they both used clips from the DOD? Would you not trust the story till say... an EU News organization was on the story???


But by your above logic, if an AP story used the IDF clip... the AP story would be invalid. Your logic is flawwwwwwwwed.

If the DoD released a tape of a controversial event which the DoD was in the center of, I would not consider it unacceptable to point out the DoD is biased. Reporting on the DoD tape is not bias. However, 2 reports based on the DoD tape is not confirmation of anything more than that there is such a tape, not that the content was true.

And as in this case, I would be inclined to believe the tape was accurate.

Minor, offtopic sidenote: I was reading in another tab a gaming blog, and Sonya Weathers(who is awesome) made a comment on the blog story that started with /blink). I got weirded out a second when I saw your post.
 
Last edited:
We need a big Blinking Face smiley.
 
Mr. V, I think she's saying this and let me spin this towards something more towards the side you'd be agreeable with.

Lets say we're back in 2005 and Michael Moore accused George Bush of attempting to Bribe him so as not to produce any more documentaries. He then releases "Audio" that he says is Bush offering him the bribe.

The Huffington Post reports on this audio and posts it on their website, and Redress links to it.

You then tell Redress "Okay, I think the Michael Moore is untrustworthy as he has a stake in this because it would cause the President to be impeached and he wants George Bush out of office, and I question the validity of the Huffington Post. You need to give me another source showing this actually ever happened".

Redress then comes back and gives you a link to The Washington Times, which has the exact same audio from Michael Moore.

While the two sources Redress linked to....HuffPo and Washington Times...are different, THEIR source is the same and you are suspicious of that particular source because he has a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.

That's the situation here.

Two sources were posted, both of whoms source was the same thing (The IDF in this case) and that particular source is what's suspicious because they have a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.

Fix the blinky eyes a bit? They're talking about the source referenced by the two "sources", IE the IDF, not the actual news organizations reporting it specifically.
 
What was the arguments that it was legit so far? Only ones I see off hand in this thread was "It came from the IDF".

Please point it out to me if I've made it. So far I've seen no evidence in this thread to either validate nor invalidate the authenticity of the tape.
 
Mr. V, I think she's saying this and let me spin this towards something more towards the side you'd be agreeable with.

Lets say we're back in 2005 and Michael Moore accused George Bush of attempting to Bribe him so as not to produce any more documentaries. He then releases "Audio" that he says is Bush offering him the bribe.

The Huffington Post reports on this audio and posts it on their website, and Redress links to it.

You then tell Redress "Okay, I think the Michael Moore is untrustworthy as he has a stake in this because it would cause the President to be impeached and he wants George Bush out of office, and I question the validity of the Huffington Post. You need to give me another source showing this actually ever happened".

Redress then comes back and gives you a link to The Washington Times, which has the exact same audio from Michael Moore.

While the two sources Redress linked to....HuffPo and Washington Times...are different, THEIR source is the same and you are suspicious of that particular source because he has a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.

That's the situation here.

Two sources were posted, both of whoms source was the same thing (The IDF in this case) and that particular source is what's suspicious because they have a vested interest in what is in the audio actually being legit.

Fix the blinky eyes a bit? They're talking about the source referenced by the two "sources", IE the IDF, not the actual news organizations reporting it specifically.

Here's the problem, Zyph. If the audio was of George Bush definitively offering Michael Moore a bribe, rather than some odd rambling, the suspension of disbelief, regardless of the source would be minimized. Is it possible that it could be some odd snippets that Moore put together? Sure, however, one must look at the quality of the audio. Does this seem legitimate? Based on the quality and the presentation, I would lean more towards it's legitimacy than not, and I have heard nothing definitive on the negative side.
 
What was the arguments that it was legit so far? Only ones I see off hand in this thread was "It came from the IDF".

Please point it out to me if I've made it. So far I've seen no evidence in this thread to either validate nor invalidate the authenticity of the tape.

Read your earlier bit, so the conflict of interest is that the IDF has a stake in the recording being legit because it helps them. I can understand that to a point, however...

And this goes to your previous with Mr. Moore... if there was no evidence that he faked it, and I could find none other then I do not trust him... then I couldn't very well say anything after two sources after that without being made fun of.

I counter with "Why do you distrust the IDF? They are the only ones that would have this audio."
 
Here's the problem, Zyph. If the audio was of George Bush definitively offering Michael Moore a bribe, rather than some odd rambling, the suspension of disbelief, regardless of the source would be minimized. Is it possible that it could be some odd snippets that Moore put together? Sure, however, one must look at the quality of the audio. Does this seem legitimate? Based on the quality and the presentation, I would lean more towards it's legitimacy than not, and I have heard nothing definitive on the negative side.

All would be excellent questions of how much credence you give someone. I will generally never give someone that has self interest in an issue 100% belief; but factors like that could make me believe them far more than the alternative.
 
Read your earlier bit, so the conflict of interest is that the IDF has a stake in the recording being legit because it helps them. I can understand that to a point, however...

And this goes to your previous with Mr. Moore... if there was no evidence that he faked it, and I could find none other then I do not trust him... then I couldn't very well say anything after two sources after that without being made fun of.

I counter with "Why do you distrust the IDF? They are the only ones that would have this audio."

I disagree about the "made fun of" part because, as I pointed out, its NOT two sources...its two NEWS sources reporting about the same SOURCE. If 50 things reprint the exact same statement from a singular source that doesn't make that statement 50 times more credible or that 50 sources back up that statement, it means that 50 news sources are reporting what an individual source said.

To even go simpler. If I go up to someone and say "You're a dick" and they go "No I'm not" and then my buddy John standing next to me goes "Yeah, Zyphlin says You're a dick" the notion that this guy is a dick does not magically become stronger because John repeated what I said. Even more, if then our mutural friend mike joins in and go "I concur, Zyphlin does say you're a dick" the fact that I now have two people repeating me doesn't make my initial statement any more legitimately true.

As I've said in other threads.

I don't believe the IDF nor those on the barges statements and accounts as if its the god honest gospel truth. Both sides have reasons and motives to lie, distort, misrepresent, and possibly even commit fraudulent accounts.

Now, that being said I have far more respect for the IDF and how they operate than I do with those on the ship. So in general I give them a higher benefit of the doubt.

That does not equal assuming everything they say is true.

Israel is losing the propaganda war on this, they are also far from a country lacking in technology, so I do not think its out of the realm of possibility that a faked audio track could be produced.

Do I think its highly likely? Not really. I don't think its out of the realm of possibilities either however.

There's too much coming out (in general) from both sides on two very extreme ends of the spectrum and I simply don't buy one side is 100% truth and the other 100% lies.

As such, while I think its absolutely foolish to decry "Its a fake!" without no evidence, so too do I feel that treating this like absolute gospel truth and thus a nail in the coffin to the righteousness and correctness of Israel and the horrors of those on the ship is also rather foolish if less so than the previous.

While they've demonstrated no evidence thus far that its "faked", the only assurance its "real" is from the people who are giving it to us who are the ones currently looking bad internationally and could use a possible swing in their favor. I give them more of the benefit of the doubt, thus I don't think its foolish to think that its likely legit and if it is feel it just makes the boat members look worse. I do not give them the benefit of the doubt enough to just assume, act, and speak as if its undeniable fact because the IDF said so.
 
Read your earlier bit, so the conflict of interest is that the IDF has a stake in the recording being legit because it helps them. I can understand that to a point, however...

And this goes to your previous with Mr. Moore... if there was no evidence that he faked it, and I could find none other then I do not trust him... then I couldn't very well say anything after two sources after that without being made fun of.

I counter with "Why do you distrust the IDF? They are the only ones that would have this audio."

To be clear MrV, I am not saying the audio if faked. I doubt if it is. My point was simply that if you distrust the IDF, then another source referencing the IDF audio is not going to prove anything.
 
Wow that was probably the fakest recording I've ever heard. Isn't this the same news source that claimed that some of the Flotilla passengers desired to be martyrs? Two pretty big stories that never showed up anywhere else AFAIK. Sounds like the source is the problem.

Take your propaganda elsewhere, the story about the three "passengers" that were talking about becoming martyrs is from a Turkish source.
 

A desperate move and a bad mistake, Degreez.
Your biased source only acts to provide basis for the validity of the recordings by approving that the voice of one of the recorded passengers was real. (His wife)
That she wasn't on the Mavi Marmara absolutely does nothing to prove that the recording wasn't real, at most it was a mistake to label this as a recording from the Mavi Marmara specifically and not from the flotilla as a whole.
And if you haven't noticed it earlier, the wife not being on the Mavi Marmara, according to the article, is the only thing that they have that questions its validity, and even that doesn't question the validity of the recording.
 
A desperate move and a bad mistake, Degreez.
Your biased source only acts to provide basis for the validity of the recordings by approving that the voice of one of the recorded passengers was real. (His wife)
That she wasn't on the Mavi Marmara absolutely does nothing to prove that the recording wasn't real, at most it was a mistake to label this as a recording from the Mavi Marmara specifically and not from the flotilla as a whole.
And if you haven't noticed it earlier, the wife not being on the Mavi Marmara, according to the article, is the only thing that they have that questions its validity, and even that doesn't question the validity of the recording.

The source for the audio is the IDF, so if you are going to discount biased sources, we have absolutely nothing here. Got to be consistent you know.
 
The source for the audio is the IDF, so if you are going to discount biased sources, we have absolutely nothing here. Got to be consistent you know.

Are you saying that I've based my entire comment on the fact that his source is biased?
Read my comment again.
I've explained that the source provides no real basis for the claim that the audio was forged.
 
Are you saying that I've based my entire comment on the fact that his source is biased?
Read my comment again.
I've explained that the source provides no real basis for the claim that the audio was forged.

But you are missing the point. What they printed is not proof that the tape is phony, but there is no proof that the tape was not doctored either. Both sources are biased. We are back to square one, not knowing the truth.
 
But you are missing the point. What they printed is not proof that the tape is phony, but there is no proof that the tape was not doctored either. Both sources are biased. We are back to square one, not knowing the truth.

I've never said that there is a proof that this tape is completely valid.
What I did say however is that his article does not support the claim that it was forged.
 
The unedited video that showed the first Israeli descending unto the deck of the ship and the immediate swarm of armed attackers he faced SHOULD give people a clue as to the relative veracity of statements. Unfortunately, though, there are a good number of people who support this lynching -- a lynching supported despite, or perhaps because of the political views of those engaging in it -- and another group indulging in posturing. That posturing claims to be motivated by a desire for neutrality, but it is so forced as to represent the same sort of denial offered by the actual supporters. It's like walking down the street while watching one person coming up to another and stabbing them, only to claim "Well, I can't say that the person was stabbed" while the person stabbed lies bleeding in the gutter. In the case of Israel, such posturing may be calculated to make the poster feel better by appearing non- -judgmental, but the extremes people go through to AVOID making a value judgment are just as suspect as those indulging in the Orwellian newspeak by calling the attackers "humanitarians".


The philosophical end point of such lines of thought are nihilistic in nature. Nothing matters. There is no right and wrong. There is no truth. We can't take a side. I don't know about others, but if I were to see a hundred members of the KKK beating the sh!t out of a black man, I WOULD take a side. I would take the side of the target because I have an understanding of the motivations behind the attack, and feel a natural empathy for the victim. Why others who should know better insist that their inability to indulge in moral reasoning is a GOOD thing is beyond me -- especially as they ridicule those who do.

Those who sponsored this particular ship are part of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization bent upon the establishment of a totalitarian Islamist state, and the thugs involved in the lynchings most certainly share those views. Good grief, when are otherwise reasonably intelligent people ever going to get a grip, anyway? Yeah, right, we can't display any value judgement. We sure wouldn't want to say something that isn't politicaly correct, would we?
 
If you can find a reputable source showing this recording to be fake, by all means, please bring it to our attention.

If you cannot, then we must accept this recording as legitimate.
Until we know whether or not it's real we should admit that we don't know.
 
Until we know whether or not it's real we should admit that we don't know.

I'm going to assume the IDF isn't lying, because the PR Blowback from FAKING the tape far outweighs the positive gained from the tape accepted as legitimate. Sorry, if the FBI Released tapes in a similar situation I wouldn't doubt the validity of the tapes until there is given good reason to doubt the tape.

I think the doubt is because it Israel...
 
Last edited:
I'm going to assume the IDF isn't lying, because the PR Blowback form FAKING the tape far outweighs the positive gained from the tape accepted as legitimate. Sorry, if the FBI Released tapes in a similar situation I wouldn't doubt the validity of the tapes until there is given good reason to doubt the tape.

I think the doubt is because it Israel...

I have no doubt regardng the tape since I know how the IDF operates, but I can understand people who question its validity.
 
Back
Top Bottom