crispy
Member
I might be off on a tangent here, but what if, and i mean if, Loren just accepted it because it confirms his bias? But thats not really like him so...
-
Features
The dead "children" of Gaza
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
I might be off on a tangent here, but what if, and i mean if, Loren just accepted it because it confirms his bias? But thats not really like him so...
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Occam's razor is that the explanation that requires least amount of assumptions is more likely to be true. By simply crossing out those assumptions does not change the facts of reality.
If the explanation for the poster and the the name (ignoring the reliability fo the source of that claim for a minute) is that there were two different people with the same name, a 13 year old kid and an older Hamas militant, then you also need to assume that for some reason the Hamas militant was not included in the casualty list.
For example, nothing about either of the pieces of information includes a date. So if a man and his son are both killed (whether on the same day or different) and the man is a militant, and the list is supposed to be civilian casualties, then this would make perfect sense. The militant is killed, gets a poster, but is not counted among the civilians. But his son is also killed and he is indeed a civilian, so they list him.
But we don't know any of that. We don't know anything, including the source of Loren's poster, which could very easily have been completely fabricated by the Israelis to cart out just this storyline. See a 13yo on a list? Make up a fake poster with his name and a picture of some other guy to discredit the Gazans. Mission accomplish via photoshop. So easy.
But we don't know any of that. We don't know anything, including the source of Loren's poster, which could very easily have been completely fabricated by the Israelis to cart out just this storyline. See a 13yo on a list? Make up a fake poster with his name and a picture of some other guy to discredit the Gazans. Mission accomplish via photoshop. So easy.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Except that it is not supposed to be a list of civilian casualties, but all casualties. This is easy to verify by checking if there are any 100% known militants on the list:
From Wikipedia:
If a senior Hamas commander gets to be on the list, then there is obviously no attempt at trying to filter out militants from the civilians in this list.
A conspiracy theory and accusations of deliberate hoax should never be the first hypothesis.
untermensche
Contributor
Hamas will blindly shoot rockets and hope for death. It will do anything at it's disposal.
Of course it would lie to increase sympathy.
But that is because the sympathy for dead Palestinians is so absent in so many places. Of course many children have been killed by Israel. To think otherwise is absurd.
Israel refused to work with the Palestinians. It got the PLO.
Israel didn't want to work with the PLO. It got Hamas.
Israel doesn't want to work with Hamas, even after it was lawfully elected. It will get something worse.
And we will then hear the defenders of Israeli oppression telling us how innately violent the Muslim is. Eventually Israel has to work with somebody. How many children must it kill first?
Of course it would lie to increase sympathy.
But that is because the sympathy for dead Palestinians is so absent in so many places. Of course many children have been killed by Israel. To think otherwise is absurd.
Israel refused to work with the Palestinians. It got the PLO.
Israel didn't want to work with the PLO. It got Hamas.
Israel doesn't want to work with Hamas, even after it was lawfully elected. It will get something worse.
And we will then hear the defenders of Israeli oppression telling us how innately violent the Muslim is. Eventually Israel has to work with somebody. How many children must it kill first?
Are you saying that the issues in #2 are wrong? How about some evidence?
Still waiting Loren. Where'd you get your poster?
The list is casualties in the current spat--a period of something like a month. It doesn't distinguish combatant from civilian.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
The issues in #2 are unnecessary clutter that obscures the hypothesis that the person killed was correctly identified as a 13 year old boy.
In other words, you're agreeing they faked it.
You're making an error here. Yes, there's sympathy for the dead Palestinians. The thing is many of us realize that the blame lies with Hamas. We see the same pattern over and over--Hamas makes it's people suffer and points a finger at Israel. Some of us recognize the finger-pointing is false thus we do not blame Israel for those deaths.
There has never been an issue of working with them, the Palestinians have always been unwilling to accept peace--their Islamist backers will not accept that.
Strawman.
The average Muslim is not a problem. The problem is the Islamists, a tiny subset of the Muslims.
untermensche
Contributor
Who knows?
But the many corpses of Palestinian children are not fake. They were really killed by US weapons in the hands of the Israeli military. Killing at the behest of religious fanatics. Killing because some god gave them the land and the right.
You're simply missing a much bigger pattern.
A pattern of decades of oppression and theft. Decades of Israeli intransigence.
You just crudely throw around the word "Islamist" and think it is some magic spell that changes the reality of decades of oppression and theft.
Nobody likes Islam when it becomes perverted by oppression.
That is why you end the oppression. You offer no end to the oppression, only excuses why it can't ever end. You offer hopelessness. You offer nothing.
Yes please Loren, we would certainly like for you to post some evidence.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Usually the person making the claim is expected to present the evidence. For example, if Loren says Hamas is lying about the person's age, he should provide evidence for it. And if you think claim #2 is true, that there was another person with the same name which is not for some reason listed as a casualty, then you are supposed to present evidence for that. That's how it normally works anyway.
Given that there were apparently onother "martyr" in the same group of people, I don't see why Hamas would fudge the age of one person only instead of of making all of them minors though. I am beginning to think that the person really is 13, and the poster just makes him look older than he is. Or that it is a clerical error, mixing 13 with 18 or some other shit. Deliberate fraud in such a small and irrelevant matter is sounding like a hypothesis that Occam's Razor should eliminate.
If you tell me that God exists, and then point to all the pretty flowers as your evidence, are you suggesting that I am obligated to provide evidence that pretty flowers are not created by your God? No, I am not. I will simply tell you that your "evidence" has been examined and found lacking, and I thereby decline to accept your claim.
In the absence of verifiable evidence that Ibrahim Jamal Kamal Naser anything other than a 13 year-old dead male, I decline to accept Loren's claim that Ibrahim Jamal Kamal Naser is an adult Hammas soldier.
When Loren provides verifiable evidence that Hammas lied about Ibrahim Jamal Kamal Naser, then it will be up to me to accept or ignore the evidence. Loren has not provided any verifiable evidence at all. I am under zero obligation to therefore refute his OPINION with evidence that Ibrahim Jamal Kamal Naser is really 13 years-old or that God doesn't exist.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
False analogy. Occam's Razor says nothing about whether a single claim out of context is true or not. All it says is that out of multiple statements, the one that requires least unexplained assumptions, is most likely to be true. So if we have a claim that:
1) Pretty flowers exist because God created them.
Then you need to pair it with some other claim or it "wins" by default. For example:
2) Pretty flowers exist because God, who is composed of a trinity of Jesus the Son, Yahweh the father, and the holy spirit, created them.
Then I don't need to provide evidence for the first statement to reject the second one by applying Occam's Razor. All I need to do is point out that there are additional unsupported theological assumptions in the second statement, thereby the first one is more likely to be true. If you can provide a better explanation, say, by showing the evidence for pretty flowers being created by some other means than divine intervention (should be trivial, as biology of how flowers reproduce is not exactly a mystery) then I'd have to show some evidence. However in this argument, the "FIFY" by Arctish was not to add a third more simple statement, but only to cross out the additional assumptions from the second.
So you are approaching the problem from a different angle than Arctish. Instead of "fixing" one statement out of the two presented by Loren, you are adding a third one.
#3 There is no such person as Ibrahim Jamal Kamal Nasser who is a militant and the poster is fake.
(note, nobody is saying he is a Hamas member, but of Al-Aqsa Brigades.)
Clearly, the poster exists and it has the correct name. The unsupported claim that you are making is thus that someone took the effort to forge an authentic looking Arabic martyr poster to presumably discredit Hamas (or for some other reason). I find that a stronger claim that Hamas deliberately lied about the age of the person in the casualty list, which in turn is a stronger claim than him simply looking older than he is or someone making a clerical error about his age.
He has provided the evidence, it's just that your standard of what is "verifiable" is a subjective amount of how much effort you are willing to put to it. Ultimately any evidence is "unverifiable". How do we even know that the list provided by Al Jazeera is real? How do we know there are any casualties in Gaza at all? How do we know Gaza exists?
(This is a huge derail though, and probably belongs in logic forum or something...)
For those who suspect clerical errors:
Another shahid poster, this time of a group all killed in one attack:
https://www.facebook.com/5475850052...7585005264284/779268878762561/?type=1&theater
3 of them are "children".
Another shahid poster, this time of a group all killed in one attack:
https://www.facebook.com/5475850052...7585005264284/779268878762561/?type=1&theater
3 of them are "children".
4321lynx
Veteran Member
Loren Pechtel said
But the Hamas Islamists in Gaza say "The average infidel is not a problem. The problem is the Israelis, a tiny subset of Humanity."
And so? Is it OK to kill their children? 40 or 50, 39 or 49, one or a few less? That makes everything "kosher"?
But the Hamas Islamists in Gaza say "The average infidel is not a problem. The problem is the Israelis, a tiny subset of Humanity."
And so? Is it OK to kill their children? 40 or 50, 39 or 49, one or a few less? That makes everything "kosher"?
arkirk
Veteran Member
Great! Thanks for the information. Now we can go ahead and slaughter more? Even killing adults is a war crime. I think it is high time to bring this horror to an end. Why do you continue to suggest only continuing suffering for Palestinians. You spend so much of your time justifying these murders, it never seems to occur to you that you are adding nothing to the picture that could help end this. Three of them were children who spent their entire lives under occupation. Brutality breeds brutality. I have often asked you if you have skin in the game and have never received an answer. I truly do not understand your support of these inhumane actions.
repoman
Contributor
This video of the bombing of this building by Israel shows the immense military power they have. Noise warning on the Allahu Akbar though.
How did they do the demolition? They were not in the building with charges, right?