• 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

I'm asserting they edited out more than just "useless stuff".

It seems to me, after listening to the unedited and edited versions, as if they've only cut out irrelevant information(such as the woman's port statement) and blank audio, and have only left the anti-Semitic/anti-Western remarks.
 
Great, proof?

Can you break down how they "tampered" with the audio?

Was that original cut focused on highlighting the flotilla's less then peaceful nature. Yes it was. However, since the raw audio was ALSO released, pray tell, what exactly are they trying to hide.

Just admit it, you don't like that they HIGHLIGHTED, through editing, the reprehensible behavior of some of the flotilla respondents. That's fine, and would be an accurate assessment of what was done. Accusing the IDF of "Tampering with" the audio implies they are also idiots because they released the raw audio, which would expose "tampering".
 
It seems to me, after listening to the unedited and edited versions, as if they've only cut out irrelevant information and blank audio, and have only left the anti-Semitic/anti-Western remarks.

It's the partial quote from the woman that kills that theory (although they may have put that in to show that it was the flotilla in question that was beign addressed). The woman's comments are not anti-western nor are they antisemitic.

Her full comments, however, would have looked odd if places into the edited audio in their entirety. The parts where she identifies them as being a peaceful civilian ship and such.

It is the partial inclusion that proves that they did leave more in than just the anti-western and antisemitic statements.

I do not know, nor will I pretend to know why that was done or what benefit editing the audio was going to be.

I do believe that releasing edited audio was a bad idea.

Releasing the full audio, however was a good idea. It should have been released in that fashion to begin with, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Great, proof?

Can you break down how they "tampered" with the audio?

Was that original cut focused on highlighting the flotilla's less then peaceful nature. Yes it was. However, since the raw audio was ALSO released, pray tell, what exactly are they trying to hide.

Just admit it, you don't like that they HIGHLIGHTED, through editing, the reprehensible behavior of some of the flotilla respondents. That's fine, and would be an accurate assessment of what was done. Accusing the IDF of "Tampering with" the audio implies they are also idiots because they released the raw audio, which would expose "tampering".

Explain to me why the woman's express claims to being a peaceful convoy were edited out, but part of her comments were included.

And give up the strawmen, please. I said nothing about hiding nor anything about the allegedly (open channel, remember) reprehensible behavior of the flotilla respondents.
 
Last edited:
It's the partial quote from the woman that kills that theory (although they may have put that in to show that it was the flotilla in question that was beign addressed). The woman's comments are not anti-western nor are they antisemitic.
No, her comments are neither.
I've meant that they've cut her part short and have focused mainly on the anti-semitic and anti-western remarks, since that was the point of the recording.
It is the partial inclusion that proves that they did leave more in than just the anti-western and antisemitic statements.
The anti-western and anti-semitic statements are from the Mavi Marmara, not from this woman's ship.
She was on board of one of the three small boats.
I do not know, nor will I pretend to know why that was done or what benefit editing the audio was going to be.
To cut things to the chase and present the anti-Semitic and anti-Western audio records.
I do believe that releasing edited audio was a bad idea.
I agree.
Releasing the full audio, howeverk was a good idea. It should have been released in that fashio n to begin with, IMO.
Again, I agree.
 
Whoever edited the audio tampered with it, yes. They very clearly took out more than just empty space and gibberish. Why did they do that? What purpose does it serve?

How bout this. I'll use a post of yours as an example of what was done to the audio:



These are your words "edited" to highlight particular parts of the "exchange". I hereby decree that everything I removes was unintelligible and dead air.

We both know that this is not true. I clearly tampered with your post to show how it is tampering to take certain parts of it and change how they were released. I removed all context.

I changed how things went down. That's what happened in that edited audio.

BTW, the full text of your quote was



I bolded the parts I included to show that I didn't change a single word of what you had written. i merely tampered with it.

You didn't alter what I wrote, which would be tampering. You're caught looking the fool. Keep digging the hole or admit you are wrong. Since you will not admit that you are in error calling it "tampering" you'll merely provide us with entertaining reading as you flail trying to prove how "right" you are.

:popcorn:
 
Explain to me why the woman's express claims to being a peaceful convoy were edited out, but part of her comments were included.

And give up the strawmen, please.
IT'S CALLED EDITING.

Not TAMPERING.

Tampering implies they ALTERED her comments.


Explain to me why they gave up the strawman.

That's Tamping.

Explain to me the woman's express claims to being a peaceful convoy were included.

And give up, please.

That's Editing.


You're hung on that's woman's comments, as if they actually, really, mattered. They don't.
 
No, her comments are neither.
I've meant that they've cut her part short and have focused mainly on the anti-semitic and anti-western remarks, since that was the point of the recording.

To me, that is "to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse", which is webster's definition of tampering.

There's little doubt that the editted version makes the exchange sound even worse than the unedited version.

Does that mean the complete exchange wasn't bad as it was? No. It was still pretty frickin' bad.

It just means that the editted version made it sound worse than it actually was by removing the things that were not as bad.



The anti-western and anti-semitic statements are from the Mavi Marmara, not from this woman's ship.

I wasn't sure on this due to it being an open channel and not knowing if these things can be clearly determined or not. But I admit to my ignorance on that kind of stuff.

I see no reason to doubt that what you say is true, though. It's not a stretch to say that antisemitic and anti-western douchebags would be drawn to this kind of operation.

To cut things to the chase and present the anti-Semitic and anti-Western audio records.

I think it was a major error on someone's part to go about things this way. Clearly the IDF gave them ample warning of what would occur if they refused to comply. IMO, editing the audio in that fashion to focus on the fact that there were douchebags on board undermines the fact that teh complete audio shows:

1. That yes, there were douchebags on board.
2. That they failed to comply with the orders even knowing that the IDF would have an aggresive response if they failed to do so.

1 coupled with 2 means that the IDF had every reason to suspect this ship might carry contraband, IMO, and boarding it was fully and completely justified.


I would not have been convinced of this from the edited audio becasue it sounded like a very odd exchange to me. It caused my "WTF" radar to trigger.

The full audio did convince me that the IDF acted correctly.

I would be just as critical of the US if they released audio like this. I think it is detrimental to the cause of proving an action justified.
 
What did you find in the unedited version that refutes the edited version?

I found quite a bit in teh unedited audio that, to me, made the actions of the IDF fully justified.


First, I state that the IDF would not be justified in boarding the ship(s) simply because someone on board is an antisemitic douchebag with a microphone.

But the woman essentially states that they are flat out refusing to comply with orders and said that the IDF doesn't have the authority to sto pthem. The IDF guy responds (again) that failure to comply will have dire consequences.

Regardless of the questions about the legality of the Israeli blockade (Thats' a separate issue to me), ignoring that order was stupidity of the highest order.

It placed full responsibility for all of th edeaths on thiose who made the decision to refuse said order.

If I start walking towards a cop with his gun out, and he says "Stop or I'll shoot" and I repsond with "You have no leagal authority to tell me to stop, so I'm going to continue walking. I'm unarmed and I don't want to hurt you" and I ocntinue walkign toward the cop, I would pretty much deserve to be shot.

I don't care if the cop was legallly authorized to say that to me or not, the fact that I ignored the order means I'm an idiot.

I think the editing was done to strike an emotional chord by implying that the antisemitism itself was a justification for the IDF boarding the ship.

I think it was edited to make it seem as though there was little else said other than antisemitic remarks.

I'm not sure why that decision was made, but I personally feel it was a terrible decision.

Nothing refutes the fact that there were antisemitic remarks made, and I'm not trying to imply that there was.

But tampering is not only done to make someone look bad, it can also be done to make things look "worse" in regards to certian things in order to make an emotional appeal.

The logical appeal inherent in the unedited audio is far more effective in my opinion.
 
IT'S CALLED EDITING.

Not TAMPERING.

Tampering implies they ALTERED her comments.




That's Tamping.



That's Editing.


You're hung on that's woman's comments, as if they actually, really, mattered. They don't.

Tampering can be done through editing.
 
Agree with Tuck here. They should've just released the full audio first and if they wanted to do an edited version focusing on just the anti-west and anti-jew things stated they should've done that second and stated as such.

Editing not just dead space but other comments gives a false impression that the majority or all of the conversation was simply anti-western and israeli speech causing one to infer a possible different view of the situation than one may have formed had they heard the unedited version in its entirity without selectively only showing the bad parts.
 
You didn't alter what I wrote, which would be tampering. You're caught looking the fool. Keep digging the hole or admit you are wrong. Since you will not admit that you are in error calling it "tampering" you'll merely provide us with entertaining reading as you flail trying to prove how "right" you are.

:popcorn:

I often admit to errors when someone proves I am in error. I did so as recently as yesterday and today.

Can you show me that editing is mutually exclusive to tampering?
 
Indeed, one could never tamper with the message of something through editing and presentation without actually physically having the person say things they didn't actually say. I mean, just look at these things you've said to Tucker with regards to your alls disagreement in this thread.

It's okay, this way you're right

they "tampered" with the audio

they ALTERED her comments.

That's Tamping.
 
Indeed, one could never tamper with the message of something through editing and presentation without actually physically having the person say things they didn't actually say. I mean, just look at these things you've said to Tucker with regards to your alls disagreement in this thread.

No you selectively edited, did you change anything I actually said. That's editing, not tampering.

But you won't admit that.

Also, did the IDF initial recording actually.. ya know, lie about the racial slurs over the mic? No, the "woman" wasn't even a factor till the full audio came out and peopel went "AH HA!! See, she said this, which sounded less innocent until we heard ALL her statements. See, we cannot trust the IDF!"

Again, this whole hubub about "trusting the tape" is only a question because it involves the Israelis. It's PC and A-OK to assume they are the bad guys and doing underhanded wrong things.

Also, whytf are you people defending the "Go back to Auschwitz" folks??
 
Last edited:
Also, did the IDF initial recording actually.. ya know, lie about the racial slurs over the mic? No
I think that's the main point that everyone should recognize.
 
I think that's the main point that everyone should recognize.

It's what has me flabbergasted. So the recording didn't show that one lady on that one boat in the most positive of light! Oh man, that right there, that casts all sorts of "tampering" doubts on the whole thing. Who cares about those "supposed" racial slurs and other things, I bet, ya know if they'd "tamper" with her words, I bet they faked the rest of it. We need a FULL investigation of that tape first before we listen any more!"

It's like we're posting in a Mel Brooks film here...
 
No you selectively edited, did you change anything I actually said. That's editing, not tampering.

Please show that editing is never tampering, since that has to be your contention.

But you won't admit that.

Why would I admit to somehting that would be incorrect? Obviously, you aren't using the same definition of "tampering" that I am using. Mine comes from Webster's. Where does yours come from?

Also, did the IDF initial recording actually.. ya know, lie about the racial slurs over the mic? No, the "woman" wasn't even a factor till the full audio came out and peopel went "AH HA!! See, she said this, which sounded less innocent until we heard ALL her statements. See, we cannot trust the IDF!"

The woman's comments sandwiche between the other commetns seemed so out of place that it raised my WTF radar from the start. It made no sense. At first I thought she was form teh IDF in the edited portion of the audio since it didn't jibe with the antisemitic and anti-western comments.

And previously someone posted information about said woman. It's been an issue form before th eunedited version was released.

Again, this whole hubub about "trusting the tape" is only a question because it involves the Israelis. It's PC and A-OK to assume they are the bad guys and doing underhanded wrong things.

Trusting the tape is only a question because the original tape was altered. That undermines the credibility of the source, even when they turn out to have been justified in their actions.

The fac tof th ematter is that teh edited version was odd enough to raise red flags form teh start. It sounded odd to a lot of people. Why did it sound odd? Because it was altered.

That's a horse**** PR move.

Also, whytf are you people defending the "Go back to Auschwitz" folks??

Who doing that? Please show exactly where that has occured.
 
I think that's the main point that everyone should recognize.

True. But it is also important to note that those who said the audio was suspect were correct in the fact that those tapes were indeed altered.

Were they altered to add the racist comments? No. But that doesn't change the fact that the tapes were altered.

If I were in charge of th eIDF, whoever decided to release the edited version of the tapes would be in deep **** for that.
 
It's what has me flabbergasted. So the recording didn't show that one lady on that one boat in the most positive of light! Oh man, that right there, that casts all sorts of "tampering" doubts on the whole thing. Who cares about those "supposed" racial slurs and other things, I bet, ya know if they'd "tamper" with her words, I bet they faked the rest of it. We need a FULL investigation of that tape first before we listen any more!"

It's like we're posting in a Mel Brooks film here...

Do you ever grow weary of playing with strawmen?
 
So?
We've lynched blacks for their race within living memory of people who are barely middle-aged.
We've systematically oppressed them with Jim Crow laws.
Yet if some political opponent said to Obama, "Get to the back of the bus where you belong, Coon-Ass", I would not be sympathetic if Obama pulled out a weapon and opened fire on that person (or on the entire Tea Party).
Obama would be out of control, and legal action would have to be taken against him.

And the horse you rode in on.
 
I wasn't sure on this due to it being an open channel and not knowing if these things can be clearly determined or not. But I admit to my ignorance on that kind of stuff.

You may be correct to doubt

Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz". The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a "clarification/correction", explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.

The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.

Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla | World news | The Guardian
 
Back
Top Bottom