Then stop trolling.
“My” claim is that the information has already been provided in the thread. You have explicitly stated that you will ignore some links and citations based on who posted them. Since several of my citations wold be to posts that you have declared that you will ignore, you appear to be doing nothing more than posting for a reaction. You now have it. I have not said that you “are” a troll, only that your last few posts were trolling, which they are.
Wrong again. I never said I would “ignore some links and citations based on who posted them” The only person I would ignore is FinnAgain, for good reason. But if you have a legitimate cite I will of course take it at face value.
I’m asking for proof that Israel had no involvement or knowledge of the illegal activity while it was taking place. Frankly, I don’t think it exists, but I do think the whole issue is debatable on both sides, and I look forward to any investigation that occurs.
As far as accusations of trollery, YOU need to knock that off. Now. You’re obviously still pissed at me for making fun of the shoe store thing. Get over it. You asked me for a cite and argument from my claims; I have done so. Now I’m asking the same thing and getting stonewalled.
I don’t have any clue what you are taliking about.
No, I asked you to show where in the linked stories statements were made that you claimed. You did not provide anything like that, just some vague references to statements that made similar but factually different points.
You then asked me to provide citations for statements that were already in the thread and further demanded that I defend other statements that I have not made.
You then went off on Finn and are now making personal remarks about me that appear to have no purpose but to rile me up. Go back to playing on the snark board or wherever.
Whatever. You’re clearly more interested in flexing your mad mod powers than having an honest debate. I’m done with you. Have fun with your buddy FinnAgain in the no spin zone!
Not at all. There are plenty of examples of these types of things - take 9/11 for example. It’s fairly easy to prove that the US govt did not have any involvement in that. Yes, there are a few loons who think otherwise, but it’s been pretty well established, no?
Likewise there are many ways the Israeli govt could prove they had no involvement and frankly a formal investigation is the first step. (And despite all the nasty rhetoric - which apparently only came from me - I hope that the govt did NOT have any involvement, because the last thing that whole region needs is more things to be pissed about.)
Yep, as I pointed out it’s coupled with the appeal to ignorance fallacy and the burden of proof fallacy in a nugget of fallacious goodness.(Although proving a negative can also simply be a rhetorical rather than a logical fallacy, depending on usage).
Plus, I should add that having been able to get you to concede a point, this thread has been enough of a surprise that I should probably run out and buy a lottery ticket immediately.
- I hope that the govt did NOT have any involvement, because the last thing that whole region needs is more things to be pissed about.)
