If I were as stupid as you keep insisting I am, I’d find your arguments credible. But I’m not, and they aren’t, no matter how hard you double down on your “attack to avoid having to defend the indefensible” strategy.
Isn’t it, though?
The Vichy government might want a word, you morally-bankrupt scumbag.
…says the person who keeps claiming genocide isn’t happening either.
I’d accuse you of being a delusional fantasist yourself but you clearly know you’re lying to defend monsters.
So there is a thread that should have been put in the Pit and got moved here. OK, not a big thing except I asked a question and Babele the Bufoon who can’t read for comprehension characterizes t as saying something so he can ride my ass about something completely innocuous. It’s like he has to manufacture conflict.
I see that your avatar is still accurate.
To be clear, what you’re getting so butthurt about is me saying that you “said” something when you feel I should have said you “asked” it.
Do you need a hand getting on that cross?
Not butthurt in the slightest despite your best effort (which being your best is still pretty weak). Just calling out what an idiot you are.
But I see in this thread and the other one you got all butthurt that I called you out. Seems like a case of projection. Keep it up, it amuses me on this Monday.
And my avatar is awesome, thank you very much.
OK buddy. 
It got to the point that I no longer considered him/her simply a genocide-denier as I think they moved into genocide-cheerleader territory. At that point I ignored them and it’s been pretty sweet since.
Babale lies about my position to try and weasel out of inaccurate claims about my words:
Just another internet liar.
I love your castle, it has a very nice moat.
Your just a liar because you can’t support your claim about my post personally, and in my guess, also because you’re having trouble justifying the shooting fleeing civilians stuff. One day you’ll probably feel shame about this (not about this discussion, but about carrying water for so long for atrocities).
The fact that I predicted you were talking about the GHF thing and then it turned out that indeed you were doesn’t give you pause? OK.
Cite that you predicted that I was talking about “the GHF thing”?
Right. False claims, so you can’t back them up. It’s easier just to avoid false claims in the first place.
False claims like this one?
Oh wait, I forgot, you didn’t mean “someone shot civilians in the back”, you mean “a guy claimed that after he fired at people and they retreated someone else shot at them too”.
More lies from an internet liar. It’s a shame. Lies are apparently easier than even considering that maybe an IDF member who says he witnessed atrocities might be honest and accurate.
You’re such a deranged, brain broken little shit you can’t even say what you disagree with, you just screech “liiiiiiieeeeesssss”. Go fuck yourself.
Ha! Funny hearing that from a guy who makes a bunch of claims about my specific words that he refuses to back up with a cite.
I cited your entire motte and bailey operation step by step, in the very post you quoted when you came to cry about it here.
Sure you did, even though my cite supported my original claim. Then you made your own I-asked-if-you-were-talking-about-the-GHF-incident motte, then retreated to a brand new actually-I-made-up-a-bunch-of-propaganda-nonsense-and-never-mentioned-the-GHF bailey. A fine stonemason you are!
No, it didn’t. Nowhere in the cite you linked does the soldier talk about anyone being shot in the back. He talks about shooting towards a group, which moves away from him, at which point other soldiers fire towards them. That’s not the same thing whatsoever.