The apologists of genocide have suddenly become quiet when they don't have an answer to the truth!
Zion and the Art of Armageddon
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Not a bad idea.
Meanwhile in Lebanon Israel has been blowing up banks. These were started by Hezbollah when Lebanon's banks collapsed. One thing they do is provide a loan service for the public. Israel reckon that they also pay fighters wages and there is millions of $ in them.
Take your pick. Also bombing other buildings elsewhere.The refugee camp under siege in N Gaza. No aid still. Latest is forcing people sheltering in schools out at gun point and setting fire to the schools. So sounds like fighting may have dropped off here. Those leaving earlier who risked being shot were being interviewed at check points and some get locked up. Other areas in the north are also regularly hit but no very recent news on that. More can be seen exiting the north. Looks like Israel may want all Gazans out ???
Israel is disputing reported body counts in the north. Pictures of bodies are getting out but also ones of the rubble that can't be cleared. Bit of a pass from me but hospitals clearly now have problems providing detailed data as they have in the past.
No surprise that they deny genocide
Sponsored Links
You can stop calling people jew-haters.
Strangely enough those banks usually provided loans at zero percent interest rates as is the islamic way of doing things...
Something the capitalists states of israel and their US backers can't stomach
People call me a racist! That’s definitely not true.
Jew hater is a bit harsh, I’ve mainly said antisemitic
You must have said that a lot.
Were you referring to the American and European jewish terrorists who kill the indigenous Semitic Palestinians and disposses them of their farms, homes, villages and schools?
Going round in circles again?
No just repeating the truth.
I’d happily be banned from all the anti Isreal and odds threads if you can make that happen ?
Why would i do that? You know i'm not a mod and suffer the slings and arrows of their fickle fate as much as you do.
An argument from authority[a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]
However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.[1][5][6][7][8] This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data "from scratch" would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, their competence on the topic, their coherence, their conflicts of interest, etc.
One aspect of this debate but further on it mentions another. A factor that has a separate section in the wiki
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, some of which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent used instead of political argumentation. (But modern democracy requires that voters make character judgements of representatives, so opponents may reasonably criticize their character and motives.)
MBK falls short on the first one as the subject is widely debated what ever the law he uses suggests, Use of that law does directly relate to the actual comment that is made. MBK suggests that various aspects of the situation can not be discussed at all.
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]
However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.[1][5][6][7][8] This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data "from scratch" would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, their competence on the topic, their coherence, their conflicts of interest, etc.
One aspect of this debate but further on it mentions another. A factor that has a separate section in the wiki
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, some of which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent used instead of political argumentation. (But modern democracy requires that voters make character judgements of representatives, so opponents may reasonably criticize their character and motives.)
MBK falls short on the first one as the subject is widely debated what ever the law he uses suggests, Use of that law does directly relate to the actual comment that is made. MBK suggests that various aspects of the situation can not be discussed at all.
One has to wonder whether any of those erroneously spouting 'jew hater' or 'anti-semitism' has used a PC to make those stupid claims?
Or indeed refused to condemn the modern day genocide that is taking place, whilst also accusing some of 'trivialising' the holocaust decades ago...
You see, the PC was based on a platform eventually built by a company (International Business Machines) that not only help fund the rise of hitler, but provided the machines that enabled the nazis to categorise the jews and facilitate the system that committed that genocide - via a census, punch cards, and Hollerith numbers...
And they made an awful lot of money in doing so!
Think on that
Or indeed refused to condemn the modern day genocide that is taking place, whilst also accusing some of 'trivialising' the holocaust decades ago...
You see, the PC was based on a platform eventually built by a company (International Business Machines) that not only help fund the rise of hitler, but provided the machines that enabled the nazis to categorise the jews and facilitate the system that committed that genocide - via a census, punch cards, and Hollerith numbers...
And they made an awful lot of money in doing so!
Think on that
More than 2,000 Israelis have signed this letter, published in 11 languages, asking the international community to use ‘every possible sanction’ to ‘save us from ourselves' @ the Guardian
Many of us are veteran activists against the occupation, for peace and mutual existence in this land. We are motivated by our love for the land and its residents, and we are concerned for their future. We have been horrified by the war crimes committed by Hamas and other organizations on 7 October and we are horrified by the countless war crimes that Israel is committing. Unfortunately, the majority of Israelis support the continuation of the war and massacres, and a change from within is not currently feasible. The state of Israel is on a suicidal path and sows destruction and devastation that increase day by day.
I'm looking forward to the forum fascists claiming they're anti-semitic.
Many of us are veteran activists against the occupation, for peace and mutual existence in this land. We are motivated by our love for the land and its residents, and we are concerned for their future. We have been horrified by the war crimes committed by Hamas and other organizations on 7 October and we are horrified by the countless war crimes that Israel is committing. Unfortunately, the majority of Israelis support the continuation of the war and massacres, and a change from within is not currently feasible. The state of Israel is on a suicidal path and sows destruction and devastation that increase day by day.
I'm looking forward to the forum fascists claiming they're anti-semitic.
Sponsored Links