The Kind of Lying Jew Anti-Zionists Love

[Michael K.]

Steven Lendman.  As with Jew joke BroNate, nice people can't help themselves when they see a Jew "telling the truth".  They just want to believe it so bad.

Steven Lendman, September 22, 2015: "Big Lies continue circulating, claiming a Russian military buildup in Syria, reminiscent of fabricated accusations of "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, long ago discredited." http://www.globalresearch.ca/russias-real-involvement-in-syria-no-evidence-of-a-russian-military-buildup/5477493

Pravda, September 23, 2015: "Russian Army Starts Destroying Islamic State in Syria"
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/23-09-2015/132095-russia_syria_islamic_state-0/

You will never read a retraction from Steven Lendman saying, " I was wrong, I was mistaken, I am sorry."  Nobody apologizes, they just pick up whatever the 'new truth' is and start 'being right' some more.  Everyone who believed Steven Lendman on September 22 can send me a PM stating that they were decieved.  Jude Stamps are accepted as evidence of your sincere repentance.

[Idaho Kid]

I can't stand this phony bastard.

[Michael K.]

Smell the coffee people!

[yankeedoodle]

Fuck you, Michael, and stick your stamp up your dishonest ass.  Fuck you and your headlines. 

Somehow, methinks you're sorry ISIS is being destroyed.  Hmm...

The army of Bashar al-Assad has reportedly started crushing Islamic State militants that had previously seized the cities of Palmyra and Homs. Western experts and journalists believe that the Syrian troops receive substantial military assistance from Russian military men at the base in Latakia.

In addition, Russia has deployed modern weapons, including air defense, missile systems and aviation, having turned the area of ​​the Russian base into a strong fortress. To crown it all, Russia still ships weapons to the government of Bashar Assad under previously concluded contracts. 

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/23-09-2015/132095-russia_syria_islamic_state-0/

[Michael K.]

You still don't get the whole lying Jew thing, do you?

You won't believe the truth until the Russian military boot crashes your balls.

Why do you still think that it is me who is the dishonest one?  How about your best friend, the lying commie Jew?  Why don't you suspect him when his hands are all red and bloody?

[yankeedoodle]

Tell us, are you, or are you not, happy that ISIS is being destroyed? 

[Michael K.]

Why your question is bullshit and I will not entertain your leading question contrived to force me into a dishonest and untrue conclusion.  This is for everybody else, since you are a victim of communist demoralization and cannot learn or see even the nose on your own face:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/My_enemy's_enemy

"My enemy's enemy is my friend" is an old Arab saying. It explains some strange political, religious and epistemological alliances, such as the Second World War alliance of the US and Britain with the USSR, the alliance between the US and Pol Pot, or the Mormons and Catholics during the Proposition 8 campaign in California...

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) uses this argument extensively in international relations.

http://lehuguenot.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend.html?m=1

Premise one: x is my enemy
Premise two: Enemy is not Friend
Conclusion: x is not my friend

Again, this is a legitimate syllogism. The definition of friend and enemy are contrary opposites. One more step (building on this):

Premise one: x and y are not friends
Premise two: x is not my friend (from previous syllogism)
Conclusion: y is not my enemy *(y is my friend)

And thus, these two syllogisms combine to form x is my enemy, and y is enemy of x, enemy is not friend, thus y is my friend; or enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But it should be obvious that step two of the formation of this principle has structural errors, and this is called a "formal fallacy". It is possible to not know much about the content of the argument, but to know from the structure that the logic is wrong. In this particular instance, there is nothing in the premises that allow for y and friend to be connected by the verb 'is'.

The name of the fallacy above is the Fallacy of the four terms - which means four terms, not the correct three, are connected by two premises. This means that there will be an equivocation of terms (in this case enemy of x = friend of z) without logically establishing the equivocation.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

False Dichotomy

A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words "either" and "or", like this: "Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong."
A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It's not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.
A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions.

[yankeedoodle]

The theory held by many is that ISIS is an acronym for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. 

Many people believe that it's purpose is to purge countries surrounding Israhell to all for the expansion of Israhell.

The activities of ISIS are contributing to the refugee crisis that is ruining millions of lives and causing enormous turmoil.

Are you a support of ISIS? 

[Michael K.]

See reply above.

[yankeedoodle]

You have no concern that the Israhellis are ruining the lives of millions and millions of people - Christian, Muslim, European, Arab, North African, etc. - because nothing matters to you except the supposed - in your mind - jews that lurk behind Putin, and, more importantly, you are so very adamant that we, also, ignore the very real ISIS and, instead, focus on your supposed jews that lurk behind Putin, who has acted boldly to bring about the destruction of ISIS.

Either you are dizzy thinking in circles - perhaps chasing phantoms in your mind - or this is misdirection.

[Michael K.]

Either you are dizzy thinking in circles - perhaps chasing phantoms in your mind - or this is misdirection.

See false dichotomy, above.

[yankeedoodle]

False dichotomy is a false response.

[Michael K.]

In Reply #5, above, you answered my question with a question, which is a rabbinical habit and a false, dishonest, and evasive response which is a clear admission that you have no ground to stand on.  If you want to have an honest conversation, then give an honest answer.

[yankeedoodle]

...a rabbinical habit...

Bullshit.  If so, everybody's a Rabbi.

Scenario:
Antagonist:  Where are you going?
Protagonist:  Who want's to know?

Happens countless times every day, everywhere in the world.  Has nothing to do with being "rabbinical." 

[Michael K.]

Now you evade answering the question posed in #4 again.  I said that if you want to have an honest conversation, then give a straight answer.  Why is it more likely or logical that I am deceiving you, than that Pravda or Steven Lendman is?

[yankeedoodle]

Your mission was to prove that Lendman was lying, and you used a headline from Pravda as proof.

The headline - as happens quite frequently - did not, with complete accurately, reflect the content of the article. 

Lendman was disputing accounts of Russian activity in Syria, and the Pravda article said that it was Syria that was doing the fighting, not Russia.

You haven't proved that Lendman was lying.

[Michael K.]

Why does the Pravda headline lie, then?  If it is not true, Lendman isn't lying but Pravda is.  If it is true, then Lendman is at the very least decieved himself and quite probably lying, or saying untruth as it were.  In either case, I am being pretty honest by showing you the two statements as they are, for comparison, since both of them cannot be true.  But you choose instead to call me the liar.

Of course, I would take Pravda to be more authoritative on matters concerning Russia then some Canadian blogger.  And so there is the problem of why the article does not corroborate the headline properly, which isn't about me being a liar.  It is an opportunity to gain insight into how the lying Jew mind works, how it is so slippery and always preserves deniability while threatening and coercing.  It is diabolical.

[yankeedoodle]

If you don't know about headlines, consider this a lesson. 

Considering the volume of material you frequently post, you obviously allow your eyes to drift downward from the headline from time to time, and, if you haven't noticed that, as your eyes descend, the story can and does often differ from the attention-seeking or passion-arousing headline, you've spent too much time reading, and not enough time thinking.

[Michael K.]

No, it is diabolical.  The headline is true, or else they wouldn't be allowed to run with it.  But they have a strategy of maintaining deniability in the eyes of simpletons and true believers, and to their destruction as it parylizes them with indecision.  They will be saying "we come in peace" as they rape your wife.  You just want to ignore the history of whom you are dealing with.  Which again, they maintain deniability about in order to keep you immobile as they reach to grab you.  Because they are supremely cynical, demonically diabolical, and they count on your innate goodness to keep you from believing how utterly they are betraying you right before your own eyes.  You deny what the headline says, even as they tell you it is so...