Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Doesn't say "unmarked".
They're literally talking about bulldozing the cemetery to make way for their Bible Trail park. (Which is apparently more acceptable because we are to believe the park won't be as crass in its tone as Coney island).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy.
And none of them to my knowledge say that the bones were a surprise or that the graves were unmarked. It's a leap to "unmarked"; headstones can be removed to be stored or unceremoniously dumped somewhere without being broken into parts. Did you know that big slabs of stone are often harder to break apart than earth? While stone's tensile strength isn't incredible compared to its compressive strength, it is higher than that of soil or dirt.
If you want to conclude something, it should follow from the premises. Mere possibility is not enough.
You're joking, right? You're arguing with me for questioning the conclusions that you jumped to and/or wanted others to jump to, that they were removing the woman to destroy her sons grave, and now you're scolding me for not having absolute proof that your wild assumptions are wrong.
I have circumstantial evidence for my claims, drawn from sources that don't just feed me back my own biases. You have no evidence that grave markers were destroyed despite having only sources that feed you back your own biases. Don't tell me "possibility is not enough" while claiming that there aren't pictures of damaged headstones because the workers obviously moved them (or something). Where's the pictures of them removing the headstones then? Where is any evidence whatsoever to support your claims? You really think that graves, which an expert in muslim history in the area characterized as hastily dug for the martyrs in 1967, were marked with proper headstones, which the city then carefully removed and hid away before taking digging equipment and deliberately tearing the human remains to pieces. That's what you think is the most likely series of events here?
You are correct in every scenario that I cannot establish your thoughts, but either you're going to have to state them yourself at some point or just continue to build the case that everything you link is deceitful nonsense which bears no relationship to what you think is actual fact.
You mean the one that said she was trying to prevent them from destroying a grave that they weren't trying to destroy? The one that proposed the description "ethnic cleansing of the dead" while providing no evidence that any dead from any ethnicity were intentionally disturbed? Nah, I'm pretty sure that's pretty well demolished at this point, and feigning ignorance isn't going to save you from having posted it and every other tweet you spam here.
You haven't established that.
Because you have read sources that don't say exactly the same thing in the same way? Please.
I pretty well have, though. To be more established, I'd have to fly to Jerusalem and take a photo of the still standing grave.
The "you can't prove that I'm an liar" game is more confession than counterpoint.
Because you have read sources that don't say exactly the same thing in the same way? Please.
Yes, having sources that say different things than your Twitter source is a method of establishing the tweet's inaccuracy.
It isn't just choice of phrasing. You cannot reconcile an expert saying the disturbed remains were from 1967 and the suggestion they were dismantling headstones from 2017. That is a contradiction of facts.
You're claiming the likely scenario is that an expert on the graveyard was consulted on the disturbed graves and he forgot to mention that woman's son and similar graves? They carefully removed the headstones such that they werent in the footage, destroyed the graves of the recently buried with their loved ones present, and the expert didn't think it was worth mentioning? Every attempt at ignorance illustrates how untenable the position really is.
This is far from the only way for the various reports to be consistent. And consistency with other reports is not necessarily required for the tweet to be accurate.
You are suggesting baselessly that a tweet you found and liked is a better source than the rest of the internet combined.
Also not true. Why do you need to lie and misrepresent to try to argue your point?
You're embarrassing yourself. " I didn't say the other sources were wrong. I only said mine can be right while contradicting them."
You're not good at semantics.