• 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

Well OK I saw it but the fact that the jpost uses edited material makes me very skeptical.

I've got a question: when was the "go back to auschwitz" thing posted? It looks like all the recordings with this comment (the edited one used by the jpost and the "unedited" one posted on youtube) appeared on June 4. That's a bit strange because the unedited video showing the same warnings were in newspapers 5 days earlier, on may 31.

Could you find a source, from may 31 or june 1, that shows the "go back to auschwitz" comment?
 
I just saw this post. Incredible.

Here is my concern as I said earlier quote from degreez quote
"Thanks to Marian Houk (Marian Houk (Marianhouk) on Twitter), I have learned that the Israeli army originally uploaded a video in which the same naval officer in the video above has an innocuous conversation with a ship in which the only reply from the ship is 'Negative, Negative, our destination is Gaza,'" said Abunimah.

Now, I listened to this on 31st April with picture of same men. This has totally disappeared from any of the tapes.

Then there is this

Freegaza - IDF Admits It Doctored the Audio Tapes

My questioned remains unanswered. Why did the IDF on 31st May release a tape where the crew just said they were going on to Gaza as in the above quote and where is that conversation now.
 
This is actually a good example of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy... working both ways. The fallacy states that you cannot assume something is true because it has not been proven false. Conversely, it also states that you cannot assume something is false just because it has not been proven true. In this case, there is evidence that the tape is authentic. Because of this, just saying, "it doesn't sound authentic to me" is a logical fallacy... unless it is backed you with some sort of evidence.

But, we're not dealing in deductive reasoning here. Without corroboration of the evidence presented the ONLY thing you have is your own judgement as to how it sounds. Sure, as with any inductive reasoning, you might be wrong if you draw conclusions from your subjective perceptions. But, often the best strategy to evaluate a situation IS to employ induction. In fact, the vast majority of situations in the world require it: we would do VERY little at all if we didn't.

That aside, it is perfectly legitimate to withhold acceptance of the authenticity of evidence. No fallacy required. It is absolutely legitimate to say, "I do not accept the authenticity of the recording". I wouldn't need to prove anything. This is, of course, different than saying "I hold the recording to be inauthentic", which would require proof. But, the difference is the key to understanding why the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, which is: "The recording is authentic".

As a result of withholding acceptance of the authenticity of the recording, one logically continues on with no additional sympathy for the Israeli position, which is the same effect as if the recording were proven inauthentic.
 
Last edited:
The IDF did upload an unedited version though, so where's the issue?

Well if you and other posters question the authenticity of what is posted by "pro palestinian" sources, you have to admit that there is a legitimate concern about the authenticity of what is posted by the IDF, especially when the IDF edits audio tapes.

It is not very difficult for governments to edit material. Here is a famous example:

stalin-airbrush1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well if you and other posters question the authenticity of what is posted by "pro palestinian" sources, you have to admit that there is a legitimate concern about the authenticity of what is posted by the IDF, especially when the IDF edits audio tapes.

It is not very difficult for governments to edit material. Here is a famous example:

stalin-airbrush1.jpg

Ya there's actually evidence that those photographs were edited, do you have any evidence that this audio was edited?
 
lol your source who claims the video is fake is one of the members of the Flotilla, do you have an audio expert who asserts that the audio appears to be fake?

Has the tape been examined by an independent, unbiased "audio expert"? No.

Do you suppose it will be? I'm guessing "no".
 
If this wasn't Israel, most of you wouldn't be doubting the authenticity of the audio. But, we are talking about Jews, and well... it obvious how some here don't trust them.

Present evidence the Audio is faked, present it, and we can go from there. Otherwise... \

Imagine, if you will, that say the NAACP had audio of an event, audio of a big event that initially had made them look bad, but the audio helps them look a little better. If someone said the audio sounded fake, with nothing more then "Well, it's the NAACP and you have to question it" You guys would be calling them racist.
 
If this wasn't Israel, most of you wouldn't be doubting the authenticity of the audio.

Evidence for this?
There are a lot of critical thinkers on this forum (along with many sheep).

Present evidence the Audio is faked, present it, and we can go from there. Otherwise... \

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
If it did, we'd all be Christians, since none of us can "prove" God doesn't exist.
I'd say the onus of proof is on the person making the claim (in this case, an involved party with a personal interest at stake).
 
So, what you are saying is that a military, who is supposedly trained on when to use force and when not to, is right to be provoked by words?

Silly me, I figured that they would be more professional than that. Not to say what the floatilly guys were right in how they acted (they were wrong), but lets be serious here.

Yes, the Israeli's are just animals, that cannot control themselves!!!
 
Yes, the Israeli's are just animals, that cannot control themselves!!!

If they're shooting and killing people who (allegedly) make derogatory remarks about their religion, then you are correct: they are out of control.
Much like Islamic extremists who attempt (mostly unsuccessfully) to kill cartoonists who depict Mohammad.
 
Yes, the Israeli's are just animals, that cannot control themselves!!!

I never posted that. However, this isn't news, its just people being assholes in the heat of the moment.
 
I am still questioning the "fact" that they were fired upon before being boarded. and before hitting the soldiers with ****..

no evidence of it.
 
If they're shooting and killing people who (allegedly) make derogatory remarks about their religion, then you are correct: they are out of control.

Yeah, they've shot them because their anti-Semites, that had nothing to do with the activists trying to lynch and murder the soldiers that came on board carrying non-lethal paintball guns, not at all, that is merely a non-issue to you.

Apparently according to some of our members, lynching soldiers should be legitimized.
 
Last edited:
I am still questioning the "fact" that they were fired upon before being boarded. and before hitting the soldiers with ****..

no evidence of it.



Are those people on the top deck waiting for the chopper to come down look like they're being shot at?
 
If they're shooting and killing people who (allegedly) make derogatory remarks about their religion, then you are correct: they are out of control.
Much like Islamic extremists who attempt (mostly unsuccessfully) to kill cartoonists who depict Mohammad.

THeir religion?

Are you somehow under the impression most Israelis are religious?
 
Yeah, they've shot them because their anti-Semites, that had nothing to do with the activists trying to lynch and murder the soldiers that came on board carrying non-lethal paintball guns, not at all, that is merely a non-issue to you.

Apparently according to some of our members, lynching soldiers should be legitimized.

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.
 
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.

What does that has to do with anything?
Anything at all?
Are you ****ing serious?
 
What does that has to do with anything?
Anything at all?
Are you ****ing serious?

Words, however offensive, are not justification for lethal retaliation.
And until that tape is examined by an independent authority and declared legitimate, i'm not going to put much stock in the notion that it wasn't doctored.
 
Last edited:
Words, however offensive, are not justification for lethal retaliation.
And until that tape is examined by an independent authority and declared legitimate, i'm not going to put much stock in the notion that it wasn't doctored.

No, nobody said that because of their anti-semitism they should have been shot, and that wasn't even what has happened.
They were shot because they've attacked, lynched and attempted to murder Israeli soldiers, that's completely and undeniably justified.

When a US soldier kills a militant in Afghanistan after the militant tries to shoot him down, it doesn't happen because the militant has cursed that soldier's mother.

Now you think for a moment about what you've just said and how ridiculous it makes you sound.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom