Hate begets Hate: "Scholar" says Palestinian civilians are legimate targets because they voted in Hamas

[Loren Pechtel]

And just because you believe Hamas sob stories doesn't mean the people actually are starving.

The malnutrition rate is a good measure--Gaza isn't starving.

Yet in 2012, a WHO report (and non, they are not "under the control of Hamas"),

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3382311D17B44B2B852579FE005040C8

Look more carefully--this isn't an independent investigation, they were working with the local health officials.

And lets look at the numbers that are hard to fake:

19. The infant mortality rate is showing an overall decline over the past decade from 35 per 1000 in 1999 to 25 per 1000 in 2009.

Things are better than they were before the second intifada. And that infant mortality rate matches what it is next door in Egypt.

21. Maternal mortality was 32 per 100 000 live births in 2010 in the West Bank and 29 per 100 000 live births in the Gaza Strip – a ratio comparable to neighbouring Arab countries,

Again, they agree the Palestinians are like other Arabs.

And you're assuming the need is real--Hamas is very good at making things look worse than they really are.

Sure...Hamas used as props fake refugees and succeeded in fooling observers from the ICRC and set up fake wounded civilians in Gaza medical facilities still fooling observers from the ICRC and those 3500 distributed meals are a product of the ICRC imagination. And the WHO report I now linked to revealing malnutrition issues in the Gaza and close to 2/3 of the population facing food insecurity(and that was already happening in 2012) is either the product of "Hamas is very good at making things look worse than they are" or the product of WHO being "under the control of Hamas".

We've seen the same victim get rescued multiple times.

To add that Loren has not stepped a foot in the Gaza contrary to the IRC workers who do and report their observations :

Loren has stated that all reports coming out of Gaza are controlled by Hamas.

Not all but most. Going against Hamas is not a good idea if they can retaliate.

Which does NOT apply to the data I have been linking to. Though you keep dismissing it with asinine one-liner style claims.

Much of your data comes from the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

 

[PyramidHead]

Loren, out of curiosity, if you came across data that disagreed with your opinion, and it wasn't Hamas propaganda, would you change your opinion? Or would you widen your definition of "Hamas propaganda" to include the new data?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, out of curiosity, if you came across data that disagreed with your opinion, and it wasn't Hamas propaganda, would you change your opinion? Or would you widen your definition of "Hamas propaganda" to include the new data?

I would look at the data and it's source. There are unfortunately a *LOT* of lies being repeated by the ignorant.

In practice most pro-Palestinian data traces back to the terrorists.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Loren, out of curiosity, if you came across data that disagreed with your opinion, and it wasn't Hamas propaganda, would you change your opinion? Or would you widen your definition of "Hamas propaganda" to include the new data?

I would look at the data and it's source. There are unfortunately a *LOT* of lies being repeated by the ignorant.

In practice most pro-Palestinian data traces back to the terrorists.

Are the ICRC and WHO "ignorant" who repeat lies? You have denied that people are going hungry in the Gaza. You were presented with data from the above 2 organizations proving otherwise. I would love to see you telling Peter Mauer,president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, that he is an ignorant repeating lies. Same with Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization and the 34 members of the Executive Board. Of course that would NEVER happen in "real life", would it Loren?

So easy for you to discredit humanitarian organizations who contrary to you have been in the Gaza strip.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would look at the data and it's source. There are unfortunately a *LOT* of lies being repeated by the ignorant.

In practice most pro-Palestinian data traces back to the terrorists.

Are the ICRC and WHO "ignorant" who repeat lies? You have denied that people are going hungry in the Gaza. You were presented with data from the above 2 organizations proving otherwise. I would love to see you telling Peter Mauer,president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, that he is an ignorant repeating lies. Same with Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization and the 34 members of the Executive Board. Of course that would NEVER happen in "real life", would it Loren?

So easy for you to discredit humanitarian organizations who contrary to you have been in the Gaza strip.

Gaza gets enough food--that aid is food being allowed in. The people suffer because Hamas spends it's money on weapons and their squabbles with the PA don't help matters, either--part of their fuel problem is because the PA is trying to mark fuel up over 50% and Hamas doesn't want to pay that.

As for that data--check the sources listed. There's a whole bunch of "Palestinian Ministry for Health" in the citations.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know why anybody bothers to argue with somebody who's delusion is every word that comes from Palestinians is a lie.

It's a position born of pure ignorance and bigotry.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Are the ICRC and WHO "ignorant" who repeat lies? You have denied that people are going hungry in the Gaza. You were presented with data from the above 2 organizations proving otherwise. I would love to see you telling Peter Mauer,president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, that he is an ignorant repeating lies. Same with Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization and the 34 members of the Executive Board. Of course that would NEVER happen in "real life", would it Loren?

So easy for you to discredit humanitarian organizations who contrary to you have been in the Gaza strip.

Gaza gets enough food--that aid is food being allowed in. The people suffer because Hamas spends it's money on weapons and their squabbles with the PA don't help matters, either--part of their fuel problem is because the PA is trying to mark fuel up over 50% and Hamas doesn't want to pay that.

As for that data--check the sources listed. There's a whole bunch of "Palestinian Ministry for Health" in the citations.

I am asking you again :

"Are the ICRC and WHO "ignorant" who repeat lies? You have denied that people are going hungry in the Gaza. You were presented with data from the above 2 organizations proving otherwise."

Your answer should be quite simple in view of the comment you made in reply to Pyramidhead :

I would look at the data and it's source. There are unfortunately a *LOT* of lies being repeated by the ignorant.

If you are dismissing the data I submitted from 2 organizations, namely the ICRC and WHO, based on one of the sources being a Palestinian Health Organization, surely they would fall under the labeling of " the ignorant" who repeat lies.

Thus my question above which I will expect you will now address.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Loren, out of curiosity, if you came across data that disagreed with your opinion, and it wasn't Hamas propaganda, would you change your opinion? Or would you widen your definition of "Hamas propaganda" to include the new data?

Loren doesn't even go that far; when a source is observed reporting information that is not sufficiently critical of the Palestinians -- ALL Palestinians, not merely Hamas -- or seems excessively critical of Israel, then THAT SOURCE is considered to be Hamas propaganda and anything more they report from now on is no longer credible.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I don't know why anybody bothers to argue with somebody who's delusion is every word that comes from Palestinians is a lie.

It's a position born of pure ignorance and bigotry.

My being acquainted with several members of both organization, It is my intention to contact those members and inform them that the data I had submitted from BOTH organizations (that to include the first link to the ICRC report on refugees and their distribution of meals) was dismissed with this comment :

Gaza gets enough food--that aid is food being allowed in. The people suffer because Hamas spends it's money on weapons and their squabbles with the PA don't help matters, either--part of their fuel problem is because the PA is trying to mark fuel up over 50% and Hamas doesn't want to pay that.

As for that data--check the sources listed. There's a whole bunch of "Palestinian Ministry for Health" in the citations.

And this comment :

I would look at the data and it's source. There are unfortunately a *LOT* of lies being repeated by the ignorant.

In practice most pro-Palestinian data traces back to the terrorists.

I will be interested in their response as I will also quote the link I submitted from the ICRC and paragraph I had quoted equally dismissed by Loren. Not that those active members engaged in humanitarian actions would give a rat's behind about Internet musing strangers who formulate derogatory claims they never support with any evidence, but mostly because I want to get more specifics as to how the ICRC obtained the information provided in the first linked to report I had submitted. I also want to get more specifics as to how WHO gathered the data I linked to, equally dismissed by Loren.

 

[Togo]

Loren, can we get some kind of answer on the criteria you use to accept or dismiss sources?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, can we get some kind of answer on the criteria you use to accept or dismiss sources?

Sources I have caught lying in the past I normally don't give a second chance to.

Sources with crap on their home page I also skip.

Note that sources that only lie by omission (for example B'Tselem) are reasonable when they give data contrary to their bias. They'll bend over backwards to make it hard to figure out that a casualty was probably a combatant but the basic facts are normally right. Just beware of drawing obvious conclusions from what they say.

Also, some sources are credible so long as you stay away from their hot buttons. For example, the Christian Science Monitor--good except they put "Christian" above "Science". Skip them on any issue with a religious component.

Also, any site that publishes unvetted "news" isn't credible. A collection of people submitting articles without an editor doing quality control may be right, may be wrong, you simply can't know.

 

[Shadowy Man]

For example, the Christian Science Monitor--good except they put "Christian" above "Science".

Isn't that because they are a (Christian Science) Monitor and not a (Christian) Science Monitor?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, the Christian Science Monitor--good except they put "Christian" above "Science".

Isn't that because they are a (Christian Science) Monitor and not a (Christian) Science Monitor?

No. They're not quacks, they just put the Christian position above the science.