150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[columbus]

Yes, and Israel are guilty of attacks n Palestinian, it works both ways. I simple don't shut my eyes when Israel commits atrosities

So show me that the UN is evenhanded about attacks.

The Palestinian government shot 150 rockets at civilians. They blew up something, claiming it was the Israelis. Or AI did. Turned out to be Palestinian rockets.

How did the UN respond to this?
Like I said, I've come to the conclusion that the UN is extremely biased against Israel.
Prove me wrong.
Tom

 

[Shad]

I have told you this before, i have not said UNWatch is wrong but it is biassed.

You used it as a counter, your words. Try again.

You seem to have problems with this fact

You seem to have language and memory issues otherwise you would not have used the word "counter". Try again. More so pointing out a source is bias is an irrelevant point to make. Hence why it was your intention to throw shade instead of addressing the argument itself. You are transparent

 

[ChristineM]

So show me that the UN is evenhanded about attacks.

The Palestinian government shot 150 rockets at civilians. They blew up something, claiming it was the Israelis. Or AI did. Turned out to be Palestinian rockets.

How did the UN respond to this?
Like I said, I've come to the conclusion that the UN is extremely biased against Israel.
Prove me wrong.
Tom

My first post on here links to the wiki on UN resolutions against both Israel and Palestine

Sure, there are more against Israel but not that many more.

Yes they did, that is condemnable. How the un responded i have no idea, not sure there has been time but perhaps they will

Remember it was the IDF killing a prominent Palestinian that sparked the Palestinian attacks.

 

[ChristineM]

You used it as a counter, your words. Try again.



You seem to have language and memory issues otherwise you would not have used the word "counter". Try again. More so pointing out a source is bias is an irrelevant point to make. Hence why it was your intention to throw shade instead of addressing the argument itself. You are transparent

Are you thinking for me again or is it just black magic.

I used it as i stated

 

[Shad]

Are you thinking for me again or is it just black magic.

I used it as i stated

Ergo as a counter. All you have done is admit your fallacious logic. Thanks.

 

[ChristineM]

Ergo as a counter. All you have done is admit your fallacious logic. Thanks.

Ergo as a counter as it was a counter to the big up of the un watch site

 

[Shad]

Ergo as a counter as it was a counter to the big up of the un watch site

Which is a fallacious argument as it does not address the argument. Read the links I have posted and try again..

 

[ChristineM]

Which is a fallacious argument as it does not address the argument. Read the links I have posted and try again..

Nothing new then?

Just the same old debunked bull

 

[Shad]

Nothing new then?

You keep making the same mistake so no

Just the same old debunked bull

Nope. Bias does not counter any argument. Read my links and try again.

 

[ChristineM]

You keep making the same mistake so no



Nope. Bias does not counter any argument. Read my links and try again.

No mistake from me but i suggest you look in a mirror

It does when using the counterded link as a definitive snd accurate source

 

[Shad]

No mistake from me but i suggest you look in a mirror

Wrong. You admitted it was a counter which is a fallacious argument. Try again.

It does when using the counterded link as a definitive snd accurate source

Wrong. No amount of bias refutes the argument. You must refuted the actual argument. Try again.

Again read the links I provide. Ask someone for help if you have trouble with words.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. You admitted it was a counter which is a fallacious argument. Try again.



Wrong. No amount of bias refutes the argument. You must refuted the actual argument. Try again.

Again read the links I provide. Ask someone for help if you have trouble with words.

Wrong, a valid argument based on evidence

Bull, it refute un watch as an evendand objective source

Your links are irrelevant, ask some one to explain to you what irrelevant means

 

[Shad]

Wrong, a valid argument based on evidence

Wrong. Evidence of bias is not evidence of an arguement being wrong. Try again. Read the links I provided.

Bull, it refute un watch as an evendand objective source

That does not refute the argument being made. You need to actually refute the argument itself. Try again

Your links are irrelevant

Wrong. Each link establishes your fallacious thinking.

ask some one to explain to you what irrelevant means

That is not required as I can read English. Now read my links and try again. You misused irrelevant. Get a dictionary


"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. Evidence of bias is not evidence of an arguement being wrong. Try again. Read the links I provided.



That does not refute the argument being made. You need to actually refute the argument itself. Try again



Wrong. Each link establishes your fallacious thinking.



That is not required as I can read English. Now read my links and try again. You misused irrelevant. Get a dictionary


"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

More repeated ranting just because you cannot get your own way. You ate wrongg, get over it

 

[Shad]

More repeated ranting just because you cannot get your own way. You ate wrongg, get over it

Look up what a rant is.

More so read my post and your own. You just admitted you used a fallacious argument but you are too stubborn to admit it. Try again

"It does when using the counterded link as a definitive snd accurate source"

This does not refuted the argument. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Look up what a rant is.

More so read my post and your own. You just admitted you used a fallacious argument but you are too stubborn to admit it. Try again

"It does when using the counterded link as a definitive snd accurate source"

This does not refuted the argument. Try again.

I did not use any argument, i provided a link that shows, given the copious evidence, the un watch site is right wing and israel biassed.

 

[Shad]

I did not use any argument, i provided a link that shows, given the copious evidence, the un watch site is right wing and israel biassed.

Demonstrating bias does not refuted any argument. You used it as smear as per my link. Try again.

No one claimed UN watch was objective and bias free. You attacked an argument no one made. Again the only purpose was to smear the source.

I provided a link to discredit the source. End of story.

That is a fallacy. Try again

 

[ChristineM]

Demonstrating bias does not refuted any argument. You used it as smear as per my link. Try again.

No one claimed UN watch was objective and bias free. You attacked an argument no one made.

Nope, i provided a link, you jumped in with all guns drawn. And missed your target every time. Your posts are irrelevant.

The link to un watch was provided without argument, my link to mediabiasfactchech was provided without argument. Your aggression created a pseudo argument. Sorry you dont like the results of your childish games

 

[Shad]

Nope, i provided a link, you jumped in with all guns drawn. And missed your target every time. Your posts are irrelevant.

Again for the 9th time your link being correct or incorrect is irrelevant to my point. Try again

The link to un watch was provided without argument, my link to mediabiasfactchech was provided without argument. Your aggression created a pseudo argument. Sorry you dont like the results of your childish games

Wrong as per my quote of one of your posts. You used it to discredit. Try again. The UN watch was evidence of the claim thus part of an argument. Try again.

Definition of DISCREDIT

 

[ChristineM]

Again for the 9th time your link being correct or incorrect is irrelevant to my point. Try again



Wrong as per my quote of one of your posts. You used it to discredit. Try again. The UN watch was evidence of the claim thus part of an argument. Try again.

Definition of DISCREDIT

your point is irrelevant to me. Why do you have such difficulty with that concept after being told often?

Irrelevant, show the argument you claim. I have provided the number of rosends original link, no argument there