This Is the ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE, We're Supposed to Trust

Ok. So?

 

@Alwayssa

Sorry, I had not seen an alert of your reply. I'm glad I came across your post, though, as I had just been thinking that I could have been clearer in my prior reply to you-- and now I see from your answer, that you may have misunderstood me.

You note, in this reply, that I had covered the point of investigating, in order to understand the reasons behind their security failures. This is something, though, which it is easy for those now in charge, to say can wait until later, with the presumption that the explanation will come down to some combination of procedural protocols, mistaken beliefs and attitudes, and just plain poor judgement/human error. The reason it might be more desirable to investigate sooner, would be if it turned out to be something more.

I had also covered this other possibility, of some sort of intrigue. Here is my final paragraph, from my prior reply, slightly adjusted, to make that other option clearer:

Now that I've clarified that point-- let's get more into the weeds of your predicted possibilities.

Two aspects of your assumptions, puzzle me. First, is that the obvious path, if one took the signs of an "aspirational" plan as at least being worth keeping an eye on, would be vigilance on the part of Intelligence forces, not of the military troops. Yet, Israeli Intelligence, watching Gaza, should always be on alert-- so this adds no "confusion and morale problems." It, in fact, only helps clarify for them, a potential scenario, of which to be aware (as had been the analyst, who had associated the practicing for this raid, with the "Jericho" plan). So it is not exactly the option of "ignoring" the discovery, "until such actions become evident," but rather, using what had been gleaned from the plans, to aid in the picking up of more of the clues, that would make the developing action more evident.

Let us say that something like this had been done, at least at the analyst level. Then the problem would seem to be at higher levels. Why did analysts seem to take this action more seriously than the colonel who'd dismissed it? And, most of all, why were troops removed from the border fence?

To quash this Hamas attack, or to at least greatly contain it, would not have required the whole of the Israeli army. There were an estimated 1,500 Hamas fighters, who'd taken part. But remember, they were not heavily armored, like Israeli IDF can be. So, after the Hamas training dry run, you could have slightly beefed up the fence patrol, and/or stationed reinforcements nearby, including some tanks, for instance, for ready call up. I do not know why this would promote the distress, you'd seemed to expect. Also, the IDF would want to establish an understanding and a clear communications channel, between the border troops, and Israeli air bases, so to be prepared to quickly call in air strikes, in the event of a large scale assault on the border. Again, none of this would have begun until just 3 months before the attack.

There was actually an added reason, to make some adjustments: to monitor whether Hamas seemed to get wind of them. In the Times article, it mentions questions as to where Hamas had received all its intelligence, about Israel's defenses, suggesting the possibility of Hamas spies. So by trying to compartmentalize knowledge of the various orders, Israeli Intelligence may have been able to discover any among them, working for the other side.

The second thing, in your reply, that confused me, was your seeming to assume that news of these preparations would become public, when I would assume that all efforts would be made to prevent that from happening.

I don't think your suspicions track, with the facts. These documents, the article had said, were well circulated, and similar ones had turned up, from time to time, since at least 2016, if not before. Since I don't think that merely finding this plan should have resulted in any military, other than Intelligence, action, there's no "plot" to be detected, at that point. This, of course, does not mean that wheels could not have been turning in some minds, but I would not expect evidence of this, at that juncture, more than a year ago. If there had been any conspiracy, one should look for it in the transferring of the troops from guarding the fence, and possibly in the colonel's not passing up the chain, the Intelligence report about the Hamas training, this past summer.

 

There are no reliable mechanisms to control and eliminate biases and falsehoods in Wikipedia. I can edit an article and post a quote online with my edit. My own biases will then spread among those who trust Wikipedia.

Show me an article, I'll show you the bias.

I didn't say that Wikipedia is "a less trustworthy source of information, than any other source". No source is perfect.

Most information on the internet is worthless unless put in the proper context. Unfortunately, most of it comes without the proper context.

Suppose you go with your wife and another couple to a hotel for the weekend. The next day, a newspaper publishes a large photo of you with the other woman in swimsuits at the pool, below a huge headline dramatically stating that the two of you are enjoying a weekend together. It's not a lie. But is it really the truth? (yes, something similar happened to someone in real life, but that article is several years old and not in English, so I'm not bothering to search for it).

I always ask myself if some of the proper context wasn't left out of sources on the internet. I always ask myself what we're not being told. Checking several sources is one way to avoid misinformation and disinformation, as much as possible. This is one major reason why I don't post as much as I'd like on the forum, by the way. Takes me hours, sometimes days, to verify information.

Absent proper mechanisms to put things in the proper context, and mechanisms to make sure only reliable sources are used, Wikipedia is wide open to manipulations, misinformation, disinformation, gaslighting, and generally inaccurate content.

 

If you bothered to learn anything about Wikipedia and how it functions you would know that it REQUIRES that everything be presented in a NEUTRAL tone and that ALL sides must be REPRESENTED.

That you have FAILED to substantiate your allegation against Wikipedia is duly noted.

Why is that?

Can you NOT point out WHERE and HOW it is BLATANTLY biased?

Seems that would be easy enough if YOU have other "credible" sources, right?

 

Patently FALSE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideol...n internal policy,reliable sources on a topic.

IOW's the Wikipedia SELF CORRECTING mechanism is as RELIABLE as is humanly possible for it to be.

 

https://apuedge.com/why-you-cannot-use-wikipedia-as-an-academic-source/#

https://networks.h-net.org/node/16749/discussions/3233581/persistent-errors-wikipedia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303389839_A_study_of_Errors_in_Wikipedia

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Wikipedia-Can-Be-Unreliable-Known-Errors-Not-Corrected

https://www.deccanherald.com/world/wikipedia-entries-full-factual-errors-2327417

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/3356...n-wikipedia-articles-for-most-costly-diseases

https://www.pcworld.com/article/525199/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html

 

And I hadn't said anything about "the internet," in my question. This is a second, bogus point of yours, because most anything available in print-- from periodicals to encyclopedias to newspapers-- is also available online, not to mention that there is also access to lots of scientific articles, which would be difficult to find, elsewhere. Additionally, of course, nearly any source offered, in an online debate forum, is going to be an online source. No matter what issues you may have with those, they are still buttressing of any anonymous debator's personal opinions.

But, to my original point, which had likewise been implied by Derideo_Te, after he'd cited Wikipedia, and you'd called it a biased source. ALL SOURCES have a "bias," even if the article was written by a so-called "artificial intelligence" computer. And ALL PEOPLE have biases, such that those articles which would be rated as "unbiased," will vary markedly, among different people. So the point is, if you cannot objectively show Wikipedia to be any more biased, than any other source, then it is a meaningless criticism (and, honestly, a disingenuous one) to dismiss it, as being "biased." Do I need explain that, further?

 

Wikipedia's self-correcting mechanism is very far from being reliable.

https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/18sscr.pdf

The quoted article was published in the peer-reviewed Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, June 2018, pp. 379-388.
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/18sscr.html

 

You're saying that, because all sources are biased, I have to accept your source.

Nope.

 

~ When it comes to anything political — they specialize in it !
A very tainted enterprise. "

 

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that you need point to something wrong with the actual information-- maybe by finding your own source, to contest it.

Of course, it depends on what sort of information, we are talking about. If it is an editorial opinion, then that, by its nature, is not factual. But if it is that Israel had genuine intelligence, in Hamas's very own plan and, instead of taking it seriously, actually reduced its border security-- that is factual data. Just because you, individually, find these things hard to believe, does not counter the reputation of the New York Times. If they were reporting something false about a country (Israel, no less), it is going to be noticed, and objections will be raised. So offer these sources, which contradict the Times. If you can't find them-- guess why?

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!

That is a HILARIOUS collection of RANDOM links that don't even say what you IMAGINE they say.

For EXAMPLE let's look at the FIRST one which EXPLAINS why as a STUDENT you should NOT use Wikipedia because it is a TERTIARY source and NOT a PRIMARY or SECONDARY source.

Your 2nd attempt is a RANDOM post on some type of message board that REFERS to a SPECIFIC error on some site about medieval history in the UK.

#3 is amusing because it is a Paper by some STUDENT in Singapore using an ALGORITHM to detect "edits" as means to establish "wikipedia errors". The Conclusion exposes it as farcical but I loved this part where the student admits he CANNOT distinguish between edits that are corrections versus edits are improve quality. The doublespeak trying to get around this is priceless.

So after all that effort the RESULTS are based upon SPECULATIONS regarding the MOTIVATION behind the edits?

Then with #4 there is something that MIGHT have had merit given that it was from an academic source but it cherry picked two items and then the Author flip-flops with this ENDORSEMENT of Wikipedia right at the end.

And then ANOTHER endorsement in the comments below.

By now everyone is AWARE that there was a LOT of REACHING to find ANYTHING at all "negative" about Wikipedia and it continues to death spiral with #5 taking us into DESPERATION territory.

Note the JUXTAPOSITION of the damning HEADLINE as opposed to the FACT that is was about a SMALL SUBSET of Wiki pages that are the RESPONSIBILITY of the CORPORATIONS to maintain their accuracy.

Wikipedia is BAD because Corporations hire incompetent social media employees, WTAF?

#7 is another of those BLAME the MESSENGER fallacies just like the one above based upon some or other "study" regarding MEDICAL information on Wikipedia? Who is the CREATOR of that medical information that is on Wikipedia? Doesn't the MEDICAL community have a RESPONSIBILITY to ENSURE that it is accurate?

It appears that even SARCASM is treated as a reason to DENIGRATE Wikipedia in #8 where the author is posting about some of the "bloopers" that have occured in the past.

There you have it folks, the great roundup of QUESTIONABLE sources above prove beyond any reasonable doubt that some people will go to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to bolster their BASELESS positions.

PRICELESS does NOT even begin to cover how hard I laughed when I opened each link. My sides are sore.

 

Yet ANOTHER source that does NOT say what you IMAGINE it does.

It simply ACKNOWLEDGES potential bias and provides a means to deal with it. Both @Durandal and I have acknowledged that bias exists and YOU have been provided with the POLICIES that Wikipedia uses to ADDRESS these biases.

That does NOT NEGATE the VALUE of Wikipedia as ACKNOWLEDGED by the Author of your link.

Legitimate criticism duly noted and I have no doubt that it was taken under due consideration by Wikipedia...

...which just PROVES my POINT that Wikipedia is SELF CORRECTING.

Can YOU say the SAME for YOUR sources?

 

Plus the fact that Israel teach how to and pay people to edit Wiki articles to edit any negative articles about Israel: YouTube video
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY&ved=2ahUKEwist-G_1_WCAxWYWUEAHcdGBloQtwJ6BAgXEAE&usg=AOvVaw3-EZaMffr_eVq6ryymBvzb

The guardian

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw36SrzsfdP-PktCDZuGlEFK

New York times
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1OBD2B6nfoylZgrWo4H_Yj

 

@truth and justice

I'm just making your YouTube link, more readily available:




While, of course, there is nothing wrong with correcting falsehoods, rooted in anti-Semitism, I am a little bit skeptical of how fair and balanced is the perspective of a group that represents the "Jewish settler movement." Will they be trying to edit out all references, for example, to ongoing Jewish settlements, being illegal?

<Snip from your Guardian source>
Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.
<End>


And this, from your NY Times link:
<Snip>
This week in Jerusalem, two Israeli groups hoping to smite their online enemies, both domestic and foreign, began a course in the “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia entries.

At the opening seminar, attended by about 80 activists, one of the organizers, Naftali Bennett, said that the aim of the course is to make sure that information in the online encyclopedia reflects the worldview of Zionist groups. For example, he said, “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.”

Mr. Bennet is the director of the Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers living in the occupied West Bank. Another of the course’s organizers, Ayelet Shaked of the My Israel movement, told Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news organization based in the West Bank, that the use of the word “occupied” in Wikipedia entries discussing Palestinian territory conquered by Israel in 1967 was just the kind of problem she hoped a new team of editors could help fix.

 

Willfully blind.

Bias confirmation stronger than critical thinking.

 

So what?

 

So what?

 

PROJECTIONS duly noted.

 

The reputation of the New York Times is in tatters, and has been for some time. As long as the rag calls Hamas terrorists "militants" and the horrendous terror attack on October 7 a "raid", I'll ignore everything they write.

 

Maybe they should arrest people who directly target citizens instead of promoting and encouraging such attacks. That's a good start. A bare minimum.

There is a difference between attacking a military/terrorist entity who bombing your citizens and there being unfortunate collateral. VS what the palistinians are doing in attacking non-military directly killing innocent citizens for no purpose except to antagonise Isreal and enact their hatred.

 

This Is the ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE, We're Supposed to Trust

Nobody is forcing you to trust Israeli intelligence. You can distrust anybody or any thing.

 

OK but Hamas basically is the police. Hamas is effectively the govt of Gaza. Are you saying its ok to shell them because they havnt overthrown their terrorist govt?

https://theconversation.com/gaza-war-how-representative-is-hamas-of-ordinary-palestinians-218080

 

Hamas is the terrorist group that carried out the atrocities. Hamas is going to die.

Bill Cosby Joins Hamas So Feminists Will Stop Condemning Him For Rape https://buff.ly/3RqwYdY



'PHILADELPHIA, PA — Former comedy legend and prolific rapist Bill Cosby announced outside his home this week that he has officially joined the terrorist group Hamas in an apparent attempt to convince progressive feminists to stop criticizing his raping behavior.'

"Those Hamas people... they rape, and they rape all the day long and the left-wing feminists still love them," said Cosby to reporters. "So now, I am a 'Hamas.' As-salamu alaykum. Please do not criticize my raping, which is a legitimate act of decolonization and resistance. Allahu Akbar. Thank you."

"It seems Mr. Cosby has just been misunderstood this whole time," said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. "We are proud to stand with this brave and noble freedom fighter as he resists the dirty rat colonizers who live in Israel. Thank you, Mr. Cosby, for waging noble #resistance against genocide."

'At publishing time, Cosby had been seen wearing a green Hamas headband and walking into a bar with a baggie full of quaaludes.'

 

No, the palistinian police force are the police. Hamas is a milaterized political group.