sorry, substitute ‘most’ with ‘all’ in the last thread
I kind of see your point, but I see it as basically a question, rather than an assertion.
But that ‘question’ (it was really a rhetorical question) was the foundation of their complaint and really I have to say that the comlaint was unjustified, because infact (from what I gather) the majority of Palestinians do believe, wrongly or rightly, that there was a massacre at Jenin.
MC Master of Cermonies
You really have a very weak grasp of the English language. The word used on the HR site was claim (quoted by you as say), but your statement is “Palestinians do believe …”.
I don’t give a continental what the Palestinians believe, just as I don’t give a continental what you believe. The fact is that the sources cited by HR have said that there was no massacre at Jenin. As far as expressing “what you gather” as a fact, well, I’ll take that as what it’s worth, i.e nothing.
Ok sorry yes I am being a bit liberal with the use of the word believe (in this situation though the distinction is academic as if Palestinians belive Israel has done something wrong they will certainly claim it too) but you could substitute it for claim and I’ll still stand by what I said. The compalint was over the phrase:
The complaint is not over whether or not there was a massacre, but whether or not the Palestinians still claim there was a massacre, which HR, wrongly, said they do not. However as I have shown with the piece directly from the PNA they do still claim there was a massacre.
Whether or not there was a massacre is a completely different thing as that word has no precise meaning.
I would question whether it was a rhetorical question, MC. Since we don’t have Daryl L’s original letter, it’s impossible be certain, one way or the other.
If it was a rhetorical question, you are guessing at what it meant, without haveing seen Daryl L’s letter. It certainly could have meant not all Palestinians still claim there was a massacre. That meaning would precisely fit with the evidence Daryl L. provided regarding Kadoura Mousa Kadoura. OTOH your interpretation is not only untrue, but obviously so. How in the world could Daryl L. know what all (or almost all) Palestinians believe? It would be a silly claim for him or anyone to make.
I think you’re being unfairly critical. You have chosen to interpret the question as rhetorical, although that’s your guess. You have chosen one possible interpretation of the allegedly rhetorical question, which would make it ridiculously untrue. However, with another interpretation, the rhetorical question would have been both true and proved in the letter.
Yes but do you think the complaint was justified? I can’t say that I do. It was perfectly correct to say “Palestinians claim that…”, because they do!
This is still alot of controvesy over exactly what happened at Jenin and this wasn’t helped by Israels self-incrimination (i.e. hindering UN investigation, blocking off area completely from the outside world). However it does seem that the claim of an actual massacre is unfounded as roughly half the 50-60 people killed were non-combatants but it seems that the majority of these were not killed in an arbitary manner by the IDF but were killed more as a result lesser criminality by them (HRW’s report is the most well-researched one that I have seen and this is where I get this from).
The exact words used were:
As you can see they state that “the” Palestininan children were attempting martyrdom. Not some, not many, not a few, but “the”.
As you have yet to provide a cite for these kiddie suicide bombers, I stand by my earlier statement that honestreporting is full of shit. Majorly so.
You’ve also not responded to any other point I made (still waiting on how many major flaws are needed to convince you that www.wearetiedtoarightwingjewishorganizationbutwearenotbiased.com is biased), but feel free to take your time and get back to me whenever it’s convenient, as I’m guessing the drivel from that site will still be the standard fare for a long time to come.
If you want truly unbiased reporting, find a site that’s basic gist is that both regimes are full of crap, and you’ll have hit the motherlode.
I don’t agree. A number of outside organizations have investigated. It’s now absolutely clear that there was no massacre. Furthermore, Israel’s decision to go house to house, rather than simply use bombs as the US did in Afghanistan, resulted in quite a number of Israeli casualties.
ISTM we debated this at length some months ago. I don’t want to hijack this thread even more than we have. Why don’t you look for the past debate on Jenin in the search engine.
Please provide the cite to the HR article. I’d like to be sure that I have the entire statement in context. Then I promise to respond.
What I was saying in a round-a-bout way is that there was no massacre at Jenin (but massacre is not a technical term and I could ask the question: if people die as a result of extreme and wilful neglience is that a massacre?) But there still is certainly controvesy over what happened.
If you want to have the entire statement, you can read my earlier post. That is the entire statement. Look for the quote that starts “Violation 6.”
Through the godsend of google I was able to find the cite. Your “Violation 6” is just a portion of an entire article. The earlier part of the article makes the point that
Within the context of this information, the article goes on to say what you quoted, DMC. Key sentences: “There is no explanation of circumstances how these children died. The implication is that there is equivalency – even though the Palestinian children were killed while attempting martyrdom in the context of violent attacks on Israeli forces, while the Israeli children were killed while sitting on a public bus or in a cafe, blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber.”
As I read this, the wording is clumsy. I think the writer more precisely should have said, “…even though the Palestinian children may have been killed while attempting martyrdom…while the Israeli children may have been killed while sitting on a public bus or in a cafe, blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber.”
Or, the word “some” might have replaced “the” – that is, “some Palestinian children” and “some Israeli children.”
I don’t think the meaning is unclear within the context of the entire article, despite the clumsy writing. The important point is that all the Israel children were victims; many of the Palestinian children were perpetrators. This conclusion is apparently based on the fact that the majority of Palestinian deaths were combatants. From this, it seems reasonable that a good many of the Palestinian children killed were combatants.
Independently of this article, I have read about a number of teenage suicide bombers. E.g.
december,
I quoted the article in its entirety from their “violations” page. If there was a context problem, honestreporting.com didn’t seem to find it important.
I don’t care what context you wish to put it in, it still doesn’t answer my original question. As I have asked for repeatedly, where are the cites for these kiddie suicide bombers?
There’s one in the post right above yours.
Nope, try again.
The article you posted, while claiming that the terrorists “recruit” teenagers, doesn’t actually mention any single incident specifically. The closest they come is this paragraph:
Said Khoteri was 22. This is not someone I would include in a group referred to as children. The fact that they don’t state the suicide bombers age in the above article wouldn’t be “selective omission”, by trying to insinuate the the bomber was a teenager, would it? If so, maybe you should report them to honestreporting.com, since it breaks one of their violations. Do you think they’ll start a campaign denouncing it?
Still waiting on a cite of the kiddie suicide brigade, but I’m getting the impression that it might be a while.
Since it will take a while to get that rebutted, let me get this back on track.
Jimmy Carter is one hell of an ex-president. 
Welcome back to the subject.
In my OP, I acknowledged that Carter is a great ex-President relative to the others I cited. He also is a great ex-President, relative to his performance as President, in which he was a major disaster.
Of course, it’s worth seeing how he got to be president in the first place. In his two tries, he barely beat Gerald Ford (now there was a joke of a candidate, hampered by the worst economic slump since the 1929 crash and by his pardon of former President Nixon. Yet he barely won - by 40,827,394 to 39,145,977 votes) and he lost to Ronald Reagan by a massive 489 electoral votes to 49.
I would take the liberty of amending your statement - Jimmy Carter is a better ex-President than he was a President.
Hmmm. You’ve criticized HR by questioning whether children participate in the violence. You haven’t provided any cites at all to support your position, just scorn and rhetoric. Now, I provide an independent cite that the terrorists recruit teenagers, which you reject out of hand. So, your position has no supporting evidence, yet you reject opposing evidence.
Anyhow, here are some more references:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020515-19193908.htm
And this one
And, finally
honestreporting is doing nothing more than offering opinion. they do not deal in facts. They have one agenda.
I know what a cite is. I just don’t believe honestreporting is, well, honest reporting.