"What percentage of people do you think might be lead to possibly think that the Isrealies possibly caused the fire........"
At best I would only hazard a wild guess. People tend to let their bias do their thinking all too often IMO. That obviously skews the outcome.
Now if folks actually read it objectively,........ and as you said,"(by reading this article alone)"........"....... I'd have to say:
- most, >50%, perhaps as much as 75%, would say it could have been either side or 'I don't know',
- followed by folks choosing Israel,
- & the Palestinians would be a small group.
My reasoning is the fact that the report clearly said, 'though it was not clear what set it {the fire} off'. IMO, that leaves no room for interpretation. Anyone reading only that article & reading it objectively really has to take a leap to draw any other conclusion IMO.
Some folks might infer that it was Israel because the report said, 'Israeli soldiers were firing flares and throwing smoke bombs'.
However, it also clearly stated, "Israeli soldiers lit up the sky with flares and threw stun grenades and smoke bombs." Again an objective reader would be forced to take a leap to infer it was started by the IDF, but that is not unreasonable IMO.
I'm sure that a small group would conclude that the fire fight could have allowed the Palestinians to have started the fire, although if you limit this to ONLY the article in question, this group would have to be very small, again, IMO.
In the real world you can't remove bias. You also can't limit opinions from being formed based solely on knowledge gained from one report (I.E., most people have prior knowledge of events there that will affect their perceptions).
In the real world, folks who would opine publicly, lay blame against the IDF & speculate on how this would affect opinion's of the Arab world & that of the Christian world, did not limit themselves only to the report I posted & nothing else. IMO, there would have to be bias & prior knowledge of events that affected their public proclamations.
In your post, you had already pre-judged Israel as the guilty party & took it one step further........ you inferred that the Arab world had another reason to hate Israel....... "As if it wasn't bad enough that all of Islam hates them........"..... you also inferred that Christians would have a reason to hate Israel............ ", now there are going to be a lot of upset Christians."
Aye, there's the rub. You took it a bit too far IMO.
That is why I responded as I did. And both of us spoke on the issues using all of our accumulated bias & knowledge of the issues. That's an undeniable fact.
Like I said & I still maintain, you assume too much. IMO, the facts did not support your POV. Nothing you have said since your first post on the subject has changed my POV one iota.
RE: The name calling, berating & belittling........ IMO, it only hurts you. When I see someone resort to that tactic, I automatically become wary of that persons integrity & their POV loses credibility with me. I've been there, done that mice elf. I can dish that stuff out as good as anyone.
I just don't understand why folks defend their POV with that tactic.
BTW, I do like you Clappy. I'm glad you are going to be a daddy for the third time. I think you are good people. I don't like the fact that you have to resort to personal insults & attacks though. I think you are better than that.
It's true I don't always agree with your POV. When that happens I have no problem saying so & giving my reasons why. If you are going to continue the discussion, I'll gladly engage you. However, if I disagree, I'm going to say why, sometimes on no uncertain terms ( when I really disagree).
Ö¿Ö |
