The Video Isreal Does Not Want You To See.

[DEMON CUNT]

Warning. This is graphic footage of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on a busy Gaza market on Saturday 03, Jan 2009.

Discuss...

SabbahBlog 2009.01.04 (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/01/04/what-israel-dont-want-you-to-see/)

[Sgt Schultz]

Warning. This is graphic footage of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on a busy Gaza market on Saturday 03, Jan 2009.

Discuss...

SabbahBlog 2009.01.04 (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/01/04/what-israel-dont-want-you-to-see/)

Demon Cunt = Discredited

Hamas idiotically blows up selves and other Palestinians - Demon Cunt falls for anti- Israel propaganda.

The video was not taken on January 3rd 2009. It was not taken in a civilian market, and it was not the result of an IDF air strike.

This video is from September 23rd 2005, and was taken in the Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip. A Hamas pick-up truck carrying Qassam rockets detonated by mistake during a Hamas rally, leaving at least 15 killed and dozens more injured.

The pick-up truck in question is visible for a split-second at the start of the video. The section of the video showing the pick-up exploding has been edited out. The large number of Hamas personnel present, the number of injured in military uniform, the large number of civilians and Hamas flags all over the place confirm this.

Compare the video from 4:08-4:24 with this photograph taken after the blast at the rally. In the background of the video the man shown in the white top in this photo is clearly visible tending to one of the casualties. Another person is shown coming over to him and placing the distinctive purple/green striped blanket over the body laying next to him, and the wooden pole he is knelt next to is visible.

The man in the white top is visible once again in this photograph (from this CBS News article) along with the man in a yellow shirt with serious leg injuries visible at around 3:55 in the video

A side-by-side comparison of a frame from the video at ~4:08 and the aforementioned photo from the CBS News article is here.

News articles about the actual incident depicted in this video:

Palestinians killed in Gaza blast - At least 15 Palestinians have been killed and scores injured in a blast during a parade by the militant Hamas group in the Gaza Strip. A truck carrying gunmen and home-made weapons blew up during the rally in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

Israel has denied involvement, while the ruling Palestinian Fatah faction said it held Hamas responsible. [...]

An unnamed witness was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying "I was thrown several metres, then I looked behind and I saw people dismembered and lying on the ground dead." [...]

— BBC News

Gaza: Blast during Hamas rally kills 19 - At least 19 Palestinians were killed and some 80 more were injured Friday from an explosion that occurred during a Hamas rally at the Jabalya refugee camp in north Gaza.

While the Palestinian Interior Ministry has reported that 19 people died in the blast, hospitals said that at least 10 people were killed. Some of those killed were Hamas members, and the rest were citizens, among them two children, who took part in the rally.

The Palestinian Interior ad National Security Ministry said that according to eyewitness accounts the blast occurred inside a vehicle carrying Qassam rockets and was not the result of IDF fire.

A videotape of the rally showed a jeep blowing up, followed by images of people running for safety.

[DEMON CUNT]

Discredited? Hardly. I merely offered the link and the contents of the website up for discussion.

Put that big ol' boner you have for me away and provide some links please.

Did you plagiarize the above response?

[DEMON CUNT]

Yep, looks like I fell for some propaganda. My bad.

"Sgt" Schlutz = Plagiarist. See link below for the blog from which she stole the above response. Shame on Schlutz!

http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2009/01/pro-hamasnik-helpfully-posts-video-of.html

[Redballjets88]

he cited BBC

[FORD]

Hamas= Mossad puppet organization. The "Al Qaeda" of Israel. Acting when it's convenient to stir up fear and terra among the Israeli population.

Specifically in this case to encourage the election in February of genocidal Nazi warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu, who already has his trigger finger itching to bomb Iran.

In fact the Israeli right wing press (and their neocon sympathizing proxies world wide) are already spinning the LIE that Iran is directing the Mossad puppet Hamas actions.

[DEMON CUNT]

he cited BBC

Actually, the author of blog that Schlutz so brazenly plagiarized from cited the BBC.

[sadaist]

Actually, the author of blog that Schlutz so brazenly plagiarized from cited the BBC.

Doesn't matter where it was cited from. Always in the best interests of all to know as many facts & truths as possible.

[DEMON CUNT]

Doesn't matter where it was cited from. Always in the best interests of all to know as many facts & truths as possible.

Sure it does. The use of plagiarism speaks much to the integrity of those who steal in order to contribute to the discussion. Always cite your sources. Always.

[Sgt Schultz]

Discredited? Hardly. I merely offered the link and the contents of the website up for discussion.

Put that big ol' boner you have for me away and provide some links please.

Did you plagiarize the above response?

You get called out and try to deflect - nice try.

I thought I had put the link in but I didn't.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7n4re/graphic_video_of_israel_defense_forces_attack_on/9rj2

[DEMON CUNT]

You get called out and try to deflect - nice try.

I thought I had put the link in but I didn't.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7n4re/graphic_video_of_israel_defense_forces_attack_on/9rj2

You get called out for plagiarism and try to deflect. Nicer try.

You thought wrong, Schlutz! :wow2:

[Sgt Schultz]

You get called out for plagiarism and try to deflect. Nicer try.

You thought wrong, Schlutz! :wow2:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

And in case any simpleton was wondering - the above is FROM WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[hideyoursheep]

But what do you have from you,shultz?

[DEMON CUNT]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

And in case any simpleton was wondering - the above is FROM WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Are you still nipping at my heels about this, little doggie?

So, how does my response in entry #4 play into this scenario? Could the statement "Yep, looks like I fell for some propaganda. My bad." be considered "addressing the substance of the argument"?

Did "Sgt" Schlutz, known plagiarist, spend a few hours sucking on the Dikipedia for nothing?

[Sgt Schultz]

But what do you have from you,shultz?

I'm glad you asked. I don't take the time that I used to writing what I think because after making an effort to do so it is usually met in here by "Fucking Busheep!" and "Republipuke Cocksmoker!" etc. So I learned that it just isn't worth it (time-wise) to try and make a thoughtful post about what I thought.

So if I find something interesting I will post it in here and then get accused of doing a Joe Biden if I forget to cite it. So, I still get brainless knee-jerk Commie replies but at least I didn't waste my time writing it myself.

[DEMON CUNT]

I'm glad you asked. I don't take the time that I used to writing what I think because after making an effort to do so it is usually met in here by "Fucking Busheep!" and "Republipuke Cocksmoker!" etc. So I learned that it just isn't worth it (time-wise) to try and make a thoughtful post about what I thought.

So if I find something interesting I will post it in here and then get accused of doing a Joe Biden if I forget to cite it. So, I still get brainless knee-jerk Commie replies but at least I didn't waste my time writing it myself.

Calm down, Schlutz.

I read the contents of your plagiarized response (even did some googling of my own) and accepted the fact that I fell for some propaganda. You totally busted me with your stolen content. Can you take no comfort in that?

[Sgt Schultz]

Are you still nipping at my heels about this, little doggie?

So, how does my response in entry #4 play into this scenario? Could the statement "Yep, looks like I fell for some propaganda. My bad." be considered "addressing the substance of the argument"?

Did "Sgt" Schlutz, known plagiarist, spend a few hours sucking on the Dikipedia for nothing?

Re-read pt. 2 of you post. If you can't understand it then I can't help you.

I figgered you could find Wiki since you probably don't own or read books.

[DEMON CUNT]

Re-read pt. 2 of you post. If you can't understand it then I can't help you.

I figgered you could find Wiki since you probably don't own or read books.

Not only can I find the Wiki, I found the very blog from which you plagiarized your first response. I even provided the link (that you had previously "forgot") in the previously mentioned entry #4. See if you can find it.

Books? What is books? Please explain, great plagiarizer! Me not know what books is! What is books?!?

[Sgt Schultz]

Not only can I find the Wiki, I found the very blog from which you plagiarized your first response. I even provided the link (that you had previously "forgot") in the previously mentioned entry #4. See if you can find it.

Books? What is books? Please explain, great plagiarizer! Me not know what books is! What is books?!?

Wrongo. The link I posted is where it came from.

OK me got last word in, I win.

[sadaist]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

And in case any simpleton was wondering - the above is FROM WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

LOL. Certain posters have been called out for this before. When they cannot respond to the information contained within a post, they direct their frustrations at the poster.

[LoungeMachine]

LOL. Certain posters have been called out for this before. When they cannot respond to the information contained within a post, they direct their frustrations at the poster.

Just like when "certain posters" can no longer defend or spin their party's shenanigans, they direct their frustrations out on other posters...

Works both ways, pookie.

:gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Wrongo. The link I posted is where it came from.

OK me got last word in, I win.

So you plagiarized from previously plagiarized material? Damn, you're good!

[DEMON CUNT]

LOL. Certain posters have been called out for this before. When they cannot respond to the information contained within a post, they direct their frustrations at the poster.

Gosh! Is that what that big ol' complicated entry in the Wiki means? Thanks for watering it down for us, Sadass.