- Thread starter
- #521
Again, consider the facts as to who is stealing who's land. Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqsa Mosque?
Consider The Facts
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
- Status
Again, consider the facts as to who is stealing who's land. Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqsa Mosque?
- Thread starter
- #522
Oh wait, I forgot. Documented facts are just Zionist hasbara.
facts mean nothing to these kinda people. Dogma is about the only thing they seem to have on their side. Fact are just inconveniences to be ignored.
Check the thread from the go and notice how facts actually don't have anything whatsoever to do with the terrorist Arab Muslim mind set.
Check the thread from the go and notice how facts actually don't have anything whatsoever to do with the terrorist Arab Muslim mind set.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
- Thread starter
- #525
Here is more Zionist hasbara. And if you don't believe me, just ask any of the Pali supporters.
1972 - Terrorists Attack at the Olympic Games in Munich
1972 - Terrorists Attack at the Olympic Games in Munich
Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.
A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":
- Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
- The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
- Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
- Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
- Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
- Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
- Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
- The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
- Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
- Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
- Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]
Wiki isn't peer reviewed and is highly suspect in its objectivity. No serious scholar uses it for anything but the most rudimentary stuff and even then I'd have that paper handed back to me if it ever made it to review. Just for using Wiki.
If we're going to go with facts, I don't think Wiki is our best source.
- Thread starter
- #528
Haganah was fouded out of ncecessity as the British were not able to stop or even contol Palestinian riots & the flow of weapons to Palestinian terrorists.
Challenger
Gold Member
Wikipedia is peer reviewed and often edited for biased content; it takes it's stand on a neutral point of view very seriously, so much so that in 2010 the Hasbara machine tageted it... "Last week, Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopaedia that has long been a battlefield in the narrative war, became an official target of "Zionist editing".
Two right-wing Zionist groups in Israel, the Yesha Council of Settlements and Israel Sheli, have set up a training course to teach individuals about methods of editing and influencing online content to reflect a particular ideological view point. In this way it is hoped that Westerners will, subconsciously, take as fact Israeli propaganda consisting of "all the correct arguments and explanations" in defence of Israel and its image.
One of the course organisers explained: "...we want to be there [on the internet]; to influence what is written there, how it's written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature".
A course participant said, "In general, it's so important for us to be online working to defend ourselves and to prove to the world and to ourselves that we are just and we are right."
The type of "problem" the course hopes its newly-trained editors will "fix" is Wikipedia's use of the word "occupied" to describe the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967; one participant has taken issue with the map of Israel being portrayed "without the Golan Heights or Judea and Samaria", known more generally as the Syrian Golan Heights and the occupied West Bank." Defending the indefensible: Israel's Wikipedia war
I agree however, Wikipedia is best used for the sources attributed to articles than the articles themselves, and as with all publications from any source, it's always worth doing a fact check.
Challenger
Gold Member
In fact the British were remakably efficient at controlling the flow of weapons to the Palestinians; one reason the Zionists were so successful in expelling them.
I am trying to work out which treaty by which sovereign ruler gave the Palestinians sovereignty over the land granted to the Jews for their national home. Still have not found it after years of looking
Wiki has always been suspect as anyone can become an editor and edit any of the entries. This is why it is open to abuse and the owners don't care as long as the money keeps flowing. This is proven by looking at the history of wiki articles, and you will find that the vast majority are edited by Islamic sources, not Jewish ( look at the IP address for examples as these are nation specific )
This is why so many pro terrorists ask for links so they can show that wiki says different to other sources and so the other sources must by hasbara
And how about a non islamonazi/neo Marxist sourced to prove your claim.
OR WILL YOU IGNORE THIS POST AND CARRY ON WITH YOUR LIES
And if you bother to look you find that this has been edited by many islamonazi sources to tie in with their stories. Proving that wiki is not a very good source of evidence
- Thread starter
- #535
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
That is why there are reference so people can see for themselves.
Classes help clean up hate speech and propaganda and insert facts and references. They also post details of news events, supporting info and links
Wiki is so much more than just Israeli arab related.
Last edited:
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
- Thread starter
- #538
Thank you for staying with a documented fact rather than Pali supporter types of just biased claim statements.
The Wikipedia entry was also a documented fact. No more a biased claim statement than anything else presented.
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
It does matter if the documentation is a bias or hate site/book/document or a scholar, expert or news article and if there is follow up to that news story.
Wiki is good for quick, simple starting point if you know little or nothing about a topic, but it should not be then end all authority. Wiki is an easy reference but it is constantly being updated and corrected. It is not intended as a propaganda site and in most cases is not.
We can for the most part accept wiki articles, but if we know there are error and can provide other proof, we should do so. We are not quoting wiki for a theses. There is not good reason for rejecting everything just because it is from wiki either.
I do take facts with a grain of salt if there is not footnote or reference or there is a note about waiting authentication.
I like to take the references as starting point for research since I am not sitting in the middle of a major library.
Even news reporters and researchers get things wrong from time to time. We should try if possible to get several sites or articles to use along with wiki if necessary. I would hope most of us would know the hate sites by now and avoid them altogether.
When on site or articles references their source as a hate site "beware". Some sites with a strong bias do get their stories from legitimate sources but put their own opinions with the story, does not mean they are wrong.
MEMRI might seem bias if you only see a few articles from them, but they are just a translations service for the news, TV and events. Originals are there to prove the translations are correct and not fabricated by MEMRI.
If a source is wrong or outdated, I'm sure someone will notice and bring it to our attention.
I have noticed some poster confuse opinions, speculations and supposition with facts. I'm sure in most cases those will be pointed out as well by others.
We are not writing a college paper, just participating in a forum and sharing opinions. I would hope most opinions are based on fact or experience and not just pure passion or hate.
I would also hope most poster are here for their enjoyment and education, not to incite a mob reaction to events and issues.
JMHO
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Two big wins today for Trump/Bondi DOJ -- one in the Ninth Circuit and one in the Seventh Circuit.- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
U.S. trade court judge tells Trump to return tariff money. Ruling is absurd!
- Started by johnwk
- Replies: 8
-
Iraq War Neocon Condoleezza Rice praises Trump for war in Iran- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 12
