format_quote Originally Posted by
ethnhunt
I agree that one absolutely MUST have evidence. I also agree that not ALL eyewitnesses are credible. However, you seem to be making a one-sided generalization here, implying that there is no standard by which we, the people, can judge the veracity of an eyewitness or an event. In the environment of a Western society we have an approach that is habitually used by the courts of law to make a determination what IS and what is NOT believable. I do, in all of my posts, follow this approach.
We may have two eyewitnesses claiming two different and often conflicting scenarios. Clearly only one scenario is credible. Which one? In the Western courts we do not just look for evidence to substantiate the eyewitness testimony, we look for the preponderance of evidence. It is not enough to say, that “I saw this or that…’. We look for consequences, we look for what came before and after, and most importantly we look for motive, - an agenda. In the end we must rationalize if this agenda fits what is in the best for all involved. In other words we must balance the truth with credibility, evidence and what is the best interests of the society. OK?
With aforementioned in mind, I must tell you that I can and will present my case to you in that light. I will NEVER tell you that ‘I have an eyewitness who saw something’ and based on that I declare myself to be right and declare you to be wrong. I will never do that. I will present and overwhelming evidence to support ALL of what I post here.
In the end, it is the best argument that carries the day.
Are you saying that the Holocaust has been misrepresented? If you do, then you have a problem.
There is simply no way to disagree with what is taken to be an acceptable historical narrative. So, - NO, - the Holocaust is an extremely BAD example of your assertions regarding the eyewitnesses. I caution you not to go there!
The evidence is overwhelming with pictures, videos, eyewitnesses, court documents, - etc. – all coming from different countries with conflicting political systems, yet all in agreement! Like I said, - do not go there!
Look, - I am not here to discuss anything regarding Mr. Assad. Further, you can’t connect what one eyewitness said with what another eyewitness might say. In this case, eyewitness accounts are secondary issues.
When I said that I can bring eyewitness accounts, I meant to say that I will argue for the credibility of those eyewitness. I have no idea how credible the eyewitness was in reference to Assad. However, I can and will put Mr. Peled and his reputation to shame. I will put up Mr. Peled's reputation against a number of people who completely and totally disagree with his accounts of history. Those people have reputations that Mr. Peled will never stand up too.
However, I am willing to make it simple, - let’s not bring eyewitnesses into this. I stipulate that Mr. Peled has a right to his opinion. I challenge you to look at the history as you know it, and ask the following question, - what Israel as a country, in your opinion, should do in regards to Palestinian Arabs, considering what has been happening after 1948.
Mr. Peled says that Israel violates human rights of Palestinian Arabs and I agree, - it does happen. My point is this, - Israel has no good choice here and is forced to do it or does it in self-defense. Mr. Peled says that Israel existence is illegitimate and attempt to substantiate his views with revisionist history, i.e. the history that never happen, history that he simply does not understand or misinterprets or the history that he invented.
I say that Israel and the Jews have a much better claim to the land they live on then any other ethnic group in the same area, save for the Druze perhaps. Jewish claim is historic, religious and most important enshrined in a legal process that the World has signed off on. I am sure that there are other issues, and I will entertain them if you point them out.
Forget the eyewitness, - forget Mr. Peled. Look at the evidence and try to support your views. Look at the intent, look at what IS in the best interest of the people, - all people. Ok?
Bookmarks