Federman Released From Administrative Detention
Noam Federman, the right-wing Kach activst, accused of providing bomb-making materials to Jewish terrorists planning an attack on a Muslim girls’ school—a man revered as a hero, who has proudly prayed by Baruch Goldstein’s graveside—was released from administrative detention Thursday, just in time to help foster opposition to Sharon’s Gaza withdrawl plan. Yay, fun!
That’s like releasing Ahmed Yassin from prison right before the intifada. Ugh.
Bad, bad parallel. His release is the triumph of Israeli justice, as Israel, unlike America doesn’t have a Gitmo Bay to place people it doesn’t want to try.
Mobi-
Your citation practices are highly deceptive and misleading. And this isnt the first time I have pointed this out to you. If you were to use such citation practices as an attorney, or a student writing a paper you would be disbarred/expelled, without question.
Everything you write may be 100% correct, but the websites you link to hardly ever confirm this.
In this case, you link that he was accused of the bombing, but you failed to mention that he was acquitted. Furthermore, you mentioned that he was revered as a hero, but the link you posted only discusses how he was held without proper due process. The sad part is, these phony citations pale in comparison to other citations you have posted which never claimed what you attributed you them (if you want, ill give you list).
Again, im not saying that what you posted is necessarily untrue, so dont give me a second link that supports what you claim and say “is this better?” It would be better if you would simply stop your misleading citation practices.
mobius, administrive detention is a wrong thing. they use it in the territories and they shouldn;t. if israel wnats to hold someone in jail, he should go have a trial.
“In this case, you link that he was accused of the bombing, but you failed to mention that he was acquitted. Furthermore, you mentioned that he was revered as a hero, but the link you posted only discusses how he was held without proper due process.”
is this really the best you can do jimbo? first of all, people are acquitted on technicalities or for political reasons all the time. take oj simpson, for example, or the cops that gunned down amadou diallo, or any of these corporate crooks that are walking off scott free. just because a judge rules you innocent, that doesn’t necessarily make you innocent. also, being a smart criminal and knowing how to cover your tracks doesn’t clear you of guilt, either. if federman was smart enough to leave little evidence behind, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, it just means they didn’t have enough evidence to convict him. it makes all the more sense that they’d want to catch him on a petty technicality when they couldn’t get him with anything hard, but knew he was behind shit. regardless of this, i wasn’t aware that he had been acquitted.
number two, if you don’t think jonathan pollard’s positioning federman as a hero and a cause celebre in that piece, you’re as dumb as a stump.
enough with your horseshit jimbo. if you don’t like the way i blog, don’t read my website.
There there young mobi, no need to get all mad. I dont think you read my post. re-read this part:
“Again, im not saying that what you posted is necessarily untrue”
I dont think you understood my criticism. I was only referring to you questionable citation practices.
Here is another example of a bogus citation (there are many others).
“the beheading is claimed to be in response to the torture but was filmed two weeks before the torture story broke.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FFA61A3-9C33-4597-A8D9-8079E91F2784.htm
(but if you go to the link, you will say it doesnt say that).
Like I said before, a student would fail/be suspended/ if he handed in a paper using your citation practices.
“if you don’t like the way i blog, don’t read my website.”
jason blair could have told readers the same thing about and the new york times.
and as a side note, i dont think you understand the pollard article you linked to. No where does it position Federman as a hero. He is against israel holding him without due process. You may be bringing in outside info into your analyses, but it is no where in the article. (“The imprisonment of Noam Federman, without recourse to due process, blurs the moral distinction between Israel and her non-democratic neighbors in the region.”).
Its no diff than you being against holding arabs without due process, without believing them to be heros. Bottom line: you have very poor reading comprehension skills, and your citations are deceptive and misleading (i will give more examples if you want)
oh please … you’re ridiculous … there is no comparison between linking to a less-than-perfect source, and completely fabricating a story, as jayson blair did.
further, the practice of al-jazeera and other online news sources of updating and changing their stories after the initial postings must clearly be lost on you. sometimes they replace articles all together.
yes, sometimes i could choose a better link. sometimes i paste the wrong link. whatever the case may be, it’s only a weblog. and you take it way to seriously.
“further, the practice of al-jazeera and other online news sources of updating and changing their stories after the initial postings must clearly be lost on you. sometimes they replace articles all together. ”
I read that link the second after you posted it. It hasnt changed. What you did is called fabricating a source. Im not sure if it was intentional or reckless, either way you should just apologize.
It is arguable whether fabricating a story is worse than fabricating a source. However, that wasnt my point. My point was that telling someone “if you don’t like the way i blog, don’t read my website.” is no way t respond to allegations of fraudlent reporting practices.
Here are some more examples for good measure:
“rumsfeld ordered the torture”
http://truthout.org/docs_04/051604A.shtml
“Supporting bush means you support, a total lack of tax-accountability for corporations”
http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000885.html.
You call these “less than perfect”? they dont come close to saying what you claim they say.
your defense of your nick berg beheading link was quite sad, and im curious to see how you defend these cites.
And, once again, please dont give me additional links that do mention what you claim. All you have to do is cite to a page that agrees with your claim the first time.
fine, you’re point’s noted. i’ll try harder.
also, btw, i resent the reading comprehension remark. when you surf the web as much as i do you tend to skim a lot more than you read. when i take the time i comprehend just fine. when i’m trying to keep a two websites consistently fresh with content, it’s a damagingly time consuming trying threshing through google to find the original source which i’m recalling. i tend to go for something that seems similar without ever fully reading the articles. perhaps it’s a faux pas, but it’s certainly not an intentional fabrication of sources or fabrication of a story. it’s just quick & sorta sloppy research.