False claims about 40 beheaded babies & 30 Harvard student groups condemning Israel may teach us how the US left, right & liberal process news

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Raiders here.

Poor bastard

 

[Billo_Really]

you have admitted time after time you were posting drunk here.

I posted I was drinking. I never said I was drunk.

 

[Crepitus]

So you feel saying "I know you are but what am I" is a valid retort?

Good thing that isn't what I said.

Think, don't emote. Go back, read the posts. You might get it then.

 

[Lesh]

What do you mean "keep going?"

Blowing the shit outta Gaza

 

[SweetSue92]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

Oh. Are you railing on about "false claims"? You who keep saying over and over and over that the Bible glorifies "child rape"?

Get outta town

 

[westwall]

Oh. Are you railing on about "false claims"? You who keep saying over and over and over that the Bible glorifies "child rape"?

Get outta town

It is now pretty obvious just what sort of mental deviant mintrut is.

 

[SweetSue92]

It is now pretty obvious just what sort of mental deviant mintrut is.

All kinds of mental illness on this board, to be honest. Some great reasonable folks too. And some florid mental illness.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Has the op posted ANYWHERE since making a fool of herself in this thread?

MinTrut
MIA

 

[JustAGuy1]

Poor bastard

No shit.

 

[Lastamender]

Since the world became civilized.

Israel Does not Have Right to Self-Defense in International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory​

A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat. In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it to, fuckhead!

Countries chose whether to honor international law or not. It is non-binding.

 

[skye]

‘I refuse to be silent’: Biden confirms that Hamas beheaded Israeli children​

‘I refuse to be silent’: Biden confirms that Hamas beheaded Israeli children

President meets Jewish leaders as Blinken heads to Israel; new emergency government agreed; Gallant vows to obliterate Hamas; north braces as false alarms send millions to shelters

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Clipper]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

So, the vids posted on online showing acts of brutality are just crisis actors, moonbeam?

 

[Mac-7]

MinTrut

Australian TV is reporting horrible stories of arab atrocities including beheadings of Jews young and old

 

[beautress]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

So innocent angels started this murderous war? Yeah, right, but I don't think so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So innocent angels started this murderous war? Yeah, right, but I don't think so.

she has abandoned this thread since what she posted was a straight up lie.

 

[Kondor3]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

You lie... go back to Riyadh, Fatima, so you can resume your career sucking Palestinian c--k...

 

[Independentthinker]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

Are you denying that babies were beheaded?

 

[Esdraelon]

You wouldn't happen to be this person would you?

Israel-Hating Democrat Rashida Tlaib Confronted about Hamas Chopping Off Babies’ Heads – Refuses to Answer (VIDEO)​

Israel-Hating Democrat Rashida Tlaib Confronted about Hamas Chopping Off Babies' Heads - Refuses to Answer (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

On Saturday Hamas terrorists killed over 1,000 Jews, injured thousands, and kidnapped an unknown number of Jews and foreigners.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I sincerely hope that she and that Somali bitch get a particularly nasty visit from the Karma fairy someday.

 

[struth]

As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.

Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:

MSN

In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.

While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.

But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.

Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:

Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance

What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.

Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.

In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.

And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.

Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.

Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.

This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.

Is this something that is likely to change?

Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?

Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.

Demafasict continue to make excuses for terrorist…news at 11

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not just that, but if I remember correctly the Red Cross was passing information on the concentration camps through the Swiss. The Red Cross could access the camps, but they knew about them.

That should have said COULDN'T access the camps, not COULD. Sorry