RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/23/2017 10:18:10 PM)

For those of you who are not familiar with flim flam politically motivated deceptive posting tactics, what disinfo man used in his previous post is known in philisophical circles which require highly structured logic and reason to frame arguments is the NIRVANA Fallacy, in addition to a few more, like burden of proof fallacy and the oild poisoning the well fallacy, but the nirvana fallacy is the one that glows in the dark and also proves he is in denial.

He claimed the burden of proof is on me, its not.
He claimed quoting a historian is not proof.

Hence he is required to provide nothing and I am required to provide for all intents and purposes is impossible since I am not going to fly to poland to first hand research this shit to sort out his asswipe spin.

Nirvana fallacy compares a realistic solution (iow quoting a historian) with an idealized one, (iow flying to poland personally to review and copy the records), then demands the only valid soution is the 'ideal' solution.

The Nirvana fallacy is committed when disinfoman dismisses or discounts the realistic solution by comparing it to a “perfect world” or demanding an impossible or unreasonable standard.

It takes the logical form:

X is what we have.
Y is the perfect situation.
Therefore, X is not good enough.

Likewise with the whore and his whining about the number murdered in dresden, its a double standard where I am expected to raise the dead to prove my case while they sing their religious spin from the pulpit as fact


quote:


fal·la·cy

synonyms: misconception, misbelief, delusion, mistaken impression, error, misapprehension, misinterpretation, misconstruction, mistake; untruth, inconsistency, myth

Logic
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.








Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/23/2017 10:41:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

British US and European Zionists started BOTH world wars.


Sure they did, RO. Hitler and the Kaiser were innocents caught up in the historical inevitability of those crooked nosed well-polluters. [8|]





Sure vince



Published in 1940[?] by the Washington Journal[?] under the auspices of the Deutsche Informationsstelle.



Dr. Friedrich Stieve

[1] Germany's enemies maintain today that Adolf Hitler is the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression, that he has created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country. They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.

The attempts repeatedly made by Adolf Hitler to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe resemble an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct since the commencement of his labors for the German Reich. But these attempts were wrecked every time by reason of the fact that nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration, because the evil spirit of the Great War still prevailed everywhere, because in London and Paris and in the capitals of the Western Powers' vassal states there was only one fixed intention: to perpetuate the power of Versailles.

A rapid glance at the most important events will furnish incontrovertible proof for this statement.

When Adolf Hitler came to the fore, Germany was as gagged and as helpless as the victors of 1918 wanted her to be. Completely disarmed, with an army of only 100,000 men intended solely for police duties within the country, she found herself within a tightly closed ring of neighbors all armed to the teeth and leagued together. To the old enemies in the West, Britain, Belgium and France, new ones were artificially created and added in the East and the South: above all Poland and Czechoslovakia. A quarter of the population [2] of Germany were forcibly torn away from their mother country and handed over to foreign powers. The Reich, mutilated on all sides and robbed of every means of defense, at any moment could become the helpless victim of some rapacious neighbor.

Then it was that Adolf Hitler for the first time made his appeal to the common sense of the other powers. On May 17, 1933, a few months after his appointment to the office of Reichskanzler, he delivered a speech in the German Reichstag, from which we extract the following passages:

"Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.

... Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.

... Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."

No answer was received.


Without paying any heed the others continued to fill their arsenals with weapons, to pile up their stores of explosives, to increase the numbers of their troops. At the same time the League of Nations, the instrument of the victorious powers, declared that Germany must first pass through a period of "probation" before it would be possible to discuss with her the question of the disarmament of the other countries. On October 14, 1933, Hitler broke away from this League of Nations with which it was impossible to come to any agreement. Shortly afterwards, however, on December 18, 1933, he came forward with a new proposal for the improvement of international relations. This proposal included the following six points:

"1. Germany receives full equality of rights.

2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.

3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.

[3] 4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.

5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.

6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years."

Following upon this a proposal was made to increase the strength of the German army to 300,000 men, corresponding to the strength required by Germany "having regard to the length of her frontiers and the size of the armies of her neighbors", in order to protect her threatened territory against attacks. The defender of the principle of peaceable agreement was thus trying to accommodate himself to the unwillingness of the others to disarm by expressing a desire for a limited increase of armaments for his own country. An exchange of notes, starting from this and continuing for years, finally came to a sudden end with an unequivocal "no" from France. This "no" was moreover accompanied by tremendous increases in the armed forces of France, Britain and Russia.


In this way Germany's position became still worse than before. The danger to the Reich was so great that Adolf Hitler felt himself compelled to act. On March 16, 1935, he reintroduced conscription. But in direct connection with this measure he once more announced an offer of agreements of an extensive nature, the purpose of which was to ensure that any future war would be conducted on humane principles, in fact to make such a war practically impossible by eliminating destructive armaments. In his speech of May 21, 1935, he declared:

"The German Government is ready to take an active part in all efforts which may lead to a practical limitation of armaments. It regards a return to the former idea of the Geneva Red Cross Convention as the only possible way to achieve this. It believes that at first there will be only the possibility of a gradual abolition and outlawry of weapons and methods of warfare which are essentially contrary to the Geneva Red Cross Convention which is still valid.

Just as the use of dumdum bullets was once forbidden and, on the whole, thereby prevented in practice, so the use of other definite arms should be forbidden and prevented. Here the German Govern- [4] ment has in mind all those arms which bring death and destruction not so much to the fighting soldiers as to non-combatant women and children.

The German Government considers as erroneous and ineffective the idea to do away with aeroplanes while leaving the question of bombing open. But it believes it possible to proscribe the use of certain arms as contrary to international law and to excommunicate those nations which still use them from the community of mankind, its rights and its laws.

It also believes that gradual progress is the best way to success. For example, there might be prohibition of the dropping of gas, incendiary and explosive bombs outside the real battle zone. This limitation could then be extended to complete international outlawry of all bombing. But so long as bombing as such is permitted, any limitation of the number of bombing planes is questionable in view of the possibility of rapid substitution.

Should bombing as such be branded as a barbarity contrary to international law, the construction of bombing aeroplanes will soon be abandoned as superfluous and of no purpose. If, through the Geneva Red Cross Convention, it turned out possible as a matter of fact to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, it ought to be equally possible to forbid, by an analogous convention, and finally to stop, the bombing of equally defenseless civilian populations.

In such a fundamental way of dealing with the problem, Germany sees a greater reassurance and security for the nations than in all pacts of assistance and military conventions.

The German Government is ready to agree to any limitation which leads to abolition of the heaviest arms, especially suited for aggression. Such are, first, the heaviest artillery, and, secondly, the heaviest tanks. In view of the enormous fortifications on the French frontier such international abolition of the heaviest weapons of attack would ipso facto give France 100 per cent security.

Germany declares herself ready to agree to any limitation whatsoever of the calibre-strength of artillery, battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. In like manner the German Government is ready to accept any international limitation of the size of warships. And finally it is ready to agree to limitation of tonnage for submarines, or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement.

[5] And it gives the further assurance that it will agree to any international limitation or abolition of arms whatsoever for a uniform space of time."

This time again Hitler's [Peace] declarations did not find the slightest response. On the contrary, France made an alliance with Russia in order to increase her preponderating influence on the Continent still further, and to augment to a gigantic degree the pressure on Germany from the East. MORE



Theres your war monger for you.

Hitler tried to sell peace to a world of zionist overlord controllers of the vassal states that insisted on war, germany was an economic threat to the UK and all of europe because they made better products cheaper and most importantly he defied the zionist rothschild's banking cabal so he had to go.






WhoreMods -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 4:43:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so you continue to have nothing in support of your claim hitler gassed 6 million jews, and thats the best you got. Fine I can accept you have nothing


While we're talking about having nothing, let's see a citation for the half million dead at Dresden which you mentioned in the first post on this thread and have spent fifty pages failing to provide a single scrap of proof for.




InfoMan -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 6:20:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

For those of you who are not familiar with flim flam politically motivated deceptive posting tactics, what disinfo man used in his previous post is known in philisophical circles which require highly structured logic and reason to frame arguments is the NIRVANA Fallacy, in addition to a few more, like burden of proof fallacy and the oild poisoning the well fallacy, but the nirvana fallacy is the one that glows in the dark and also proves he is in denial.

He claimed the burden of proof is on me, its not.
He claimed quoting a historian is not proof.

Hence he is required to provide nothing and I am required to provide for all intents and purposes is impossible since I am not going to fly to poland to first hand research this shit to sort out his asswipe spin.

Nirvana fallacy compares a realistic solution (iow quoting a historian) with an idealized one, (iow flying to poland personally to review and copy the records), then demands the only valid soution is the 'ideal' solution.

The Nirvana fallacy is committed when disinfoman dismisses or discounts the realistic solution by comparing it to a “perfect world” or demanding an impossible or unreasonable standard.

It takes the logical form:

X is what we have.
Y is the perfect situation.
Therefore, X is not good enough.

Likewise with the whore and his whining about the number murdered in dresden, its a double standard where I am expected to raise the dead to prove my case while they sing their religious spin from the pulpit as fact


quote:


fal·la·cy

synonyms: misconception, misbelief, delusion, mistaken impression, error, misapprehension, misinterpretation, misconstruction, mistake; untruth, inconsistency, myth

Logic
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.







argumentum ad verecundiam
argument from authority.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.



This is why people speaking about such subjects support their statements with evidence which can be discovered provided an individual commits the time to discover it. Such as Historian's speaking about battles will Reference the Armies and Units deployed specifically citing their unit numbers, armaments, or disposition.

For instance in your citation:

quote:

German aviation historian Horst Boog claims that a Polish cavalry brigade and a Polish infantry division had been located in the town by German reconnaissance the day before the attack. From reports of Luftflotte 4, 2nd Air Division, I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 76 and I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 he concludes that the bomb attacks had been directed against these military formations and can therefore not be considered terror bombings. Due to ground fog, he argues, the German pilots missed their targets and mistakenly bombed the town.[7] British aviation historian Peter C. Smith[8] too, describes the bombing as collateral damage from bombs that missed their targets during ground support of the Wehrmacht operations.[8] Polish historian Jerzy B. Cynk, author of The Polish Air Force at War. The official history 1939-1943, wrote about the events: "Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavalry and troop concentrations at Wielun."[9]

At 13:00 a German dive bomber wing, I./StG 2 led by Major Oskar Dinort via Nieder-Ellguth, were directed against this unit, followed a few hours later by Schwarzkopff with sixty Ju 87 Stukas of I./Sturzkampfgeschwader 77[8] Weather conditions were unfavourable during the day, with a visibility of only one kilometre and a practically closed layer of fog at 50 metres altitude.[10] Fog, mist and poor visibility thwarted many of the Luftwaffe's sorties planned for the morning of the first day of the invasion.[10] The dive bombers, facing intense anti aircraft fire, inflicted heavy losses on the Polish cavalry, and the advance was turned into a rout by 90 Stukas.[8] On their return home, four of the German Junkers Ju 87 bombers were shot down by the Polish 36 Academic Legion Infantry Regiment stationed nearby.[8] Three waves of attacks were carried out during the day.[8] The town was captured by the German Army on the first day of the invasion.[8]


The underlines denote army groups, divisions, and specific regiments, units, and wings. It supports the historian's claims because these points can be eventually discovered with enough individual research - as impractical as that may be...

however, in the same breath, the bold points show claims which are not given the same level of scrutiny. vague statements referencing Cavalry Brigade and Infantry Division which are not quantified in any way what so ever. These phantom assets are said to of existed and sustained losses - yet there is no reference to a unit, brigade number, or army group that they belonged to, nor any value of troop strength and disposition or the losses they incurred due to the attack.


now that being said - your attempts at misdirection, deflection, and personal attacks don't matter to me.
All you are doing is Ignoring and Evading the question at hand:

You've claimed that it was a Military Target.... that a Cavalry Brigade and Infantry Division where stationed in the city...
What Division? What Brigade?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
smoking some good shit eh.

you made the claim not me.
you claimed histler started the war by targetting civilians in Wielun with no evidence what so ever.
Despite your having no evidence I met my burden when I countered your claim referencing historians that actually reviewed exactly that case.
you now have the burden to counter the historical accounting.
you arent fooling anyone, you have nothing to counter with, and your titanic is crying all the way to the bottom as you shot yourself in the foot again.



Now for clarification - this is the discussion:

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I didnt see any citation from you about germany doing anything to the polish.

Bombing of Wielun?
seriously?

The event which drove all nations into a global conflict... The literal start of World War 2...
I shouldn't have to cite it any more then i would have to cite Pearl Harbor...

what ever...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84


so whats your point? hitler bombed poland so what? That the bombing of poland was the start of the war?


So you're just going to ignore that Wielun was a non military target which was heavily bombed destroying 90% of the city center despite it having no real strategic or tactical value.... just gloss over the fact that one of the first bombs dropped in anger by the Nazi party managed to land in a hospital killing 10-20 people.


which you then followed by attempting to Downplay it's suggnificance:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

But wiki has so many complaints about the article you posted.
number of casualties
The polish acrticle says that there were 89 proven casualties and estimates range to about 1200 (but are highly doubtable).--93.218.134.75 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABombing_of_Wielu%C5%84
in other words your link is mostly bullshit, and the pics in your link show only little damage.
estimates ranged to 6 million for the jewish holocaust which today is long since proven to be total bullshit too.



then attempt to counter act it - claiming it was a Military Target:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
(citation)

It was a military target, carry on comedians, got any more laughs for everyone?



You did provide a citation but i addressed that earlier.


Now - Wielun was a Civilian City - it had no capacity for production of military goods, it had no sizable garrison or structure to house military equipment or munitions, it had no military significance at all to define it as a Valued Target of Attack. At most it could be defined as a strategic asset as Wielun was a road junction in traditionally wet lands, making it valuable logistically to a Mechanized Military advance.

There for - i contend through rational conclusion that it should not of been targeted and bombed like it was as there is no reason or purpose to such an attack.

You are the one that claimed it was a Military Target.
Claimed military assets where located within.

Defend your claim.




Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 7:45:07 AM)

and once again you show us what you dont know and finish off with another of your unsupported opinions based upon what you dont know.

It damn sure was a military target when there are 10-30,000 troops amassing a mere 20klicks from the german border.


Division (military)

Typical units Typical numbers


fireteam 3–4
section 8–12
platoon 15–30
company 80–150
battalion/cohort 300–800
regiment/brigade 2,000–4,000
division/legion 10,000–15,000
corps 20,000–40,000
field army 80,000+
army group 2+ field armies
region/theater 4+ army groups


A division is a large military unit or formation, usually consisting of between 10,000 and 20,000 soldiers. Infantry divisions during the World Wars ranged between 10,000 and 30,000 in nominal strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_%28military%29




I had to laugh at your MISuse of argumentum ad verecundiam

quote:


argumentum ad verecundiam
argument from authority.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either
(a) is not an authority, or
(b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.
If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


So here you are with more bloviating with another false claim that I used an appeal to authority once again proving you do not understand what you are talking about since the historian quoted is in fact a historian and renowned expert in his field of expertise and therefore is fully qualified and a legitimate authoritative reference.

contrary to yourself throwing shit at the wall trying to get something to stick from your quick cursory wiki reads


Horst Boog PhD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born 5 January 1928
Nazi Germany
Died 8 January 2016
Germany
Occupation Historian, author, editor
Academic background Alma mater University of Heidelberg
Academic work Era 20th century
Institutions Military History Research Office (MGFA)
Main interests Modern European history, military history, historiography
Notable works Germany and the Second World War


Horst Boog (5 January 1928 – 8 January 2016)[1] was a German historian who specialised in the history of Nazi Germany and World War II. He was the research director at the Military History Research Office (MGFA).

Boog was a contributor to several volumes of the seminal work Germany and the Second World War from the MGFA. He was an expert on the Luftwaffe and the German side of the aerial war in Europe during World War II.





Therefore Wielun was a valid military target, the numbers are in fact known and I posted a bonafide reference not a fallacy.

ready-start your engines------ spindidindindin

spindidindindin





Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 8:04:40 AM)

more false claims from the whore troll.




mnottertail -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 8:13:07 AM)

LOL, RealRetard on Argument by Fallacy...............Join us here on RealRetard's CretinTV for the next macabre episode................




WhoreMods -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 8:38:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

more false claims from the whore troll.

Really? So let's see a citation that actually proves your claim that half a million died at Dresden, then. This thread has been running for a couple of months, so you must have managed to find something by now.
And once you've demonstrated that one, you can start substantiating some of your other claims.




InfoMan -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 8:43:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

and once again you show us what you dont know and finish off with another of your unsupported opinions based upon what you dont know.

It damn sure was a military target when there are 10-30,000 troops amassing a mere 20klicks from the german border.


What division?
you keep avoiding this question.

What's more - if there was 10-30 thousand troops amassed in the city limits - why are there not casualty reports from that division when 2/3rds of the city which they apparently where in was obliterated around them? You want us to believe that 2 wings of Dive Bombing Stuka's - which are largely heralded as being precision bombers during the war Missed 100% of their targets and simply accidentally destroyed 2 square miles of city?

but i digress, that is an entirely different reservation i have about your citation any ways...


quote:

I had to laugh at your MISuse of argumentum ad verecundiam

quote:


argumentum ad verecundiam
argument from authority.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either
(a) is not an authority, or
(b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.
If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


So here you are with more bloviating with another false claim that I used an appeal to authority once again proving you do not understand what you are talking about since the historian quoted is in fact a historian and renowned expert in his field of expertise and therefore is fully qualified and a legitimate authoritative reference.

contrary to yourself throwing shit at the wall trying to get something to stick from your quick cursory wiki reads


Horst Boog PhD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born 5 January 1928
Nazi Germany
Died 8 January 2016
Germany
Occupation Historian, author, editor
Academic background Alma mater University of Heidelberg
Academic work Era 20th century
Institutions Military History Research Office (MGFA)
Main interests Modern European history, military history, historiography
Notable works Germany and the Second World War


Horst Boog (5 January 1928 – 8 January 2016)[1] was a German historian who specialised in the history of Nazi Germany and World War II. He was the research director at the Military History Research Office (MGFA).

Boog was a contributor to several volumes of the seminal work Germany and the Second World War from the MGFA. He was an expert on the Luftwaffe and the German side of the aerial war in Europe during World War II.





Therefore Wielun was a valid military target, the numbers are in fact known and I posted a bonafide reference not a fallacy.

ready-start your engines------ spindidindindin

spindidindindin


wow - you horribly misquoted that...
the line directly above all your little underlines and red text:
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

and speaking specifically to the parts that you edited which you think proves your point:

quote:

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either
(a) is not an authority, or
(b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.
If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.


It is discussing Informal Fallacy, a variation which often occurs in the Appeal to Authority fallacy...



And we are back to you evading the question:

What Brigade?
What Division?




Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 9:52:40 AM)

once again, you cant make a valid argument by begging the question. PLONK

the fact is he can be called into court as an expert witness to testify using his professional assessments which would trump your ipse dixit begging the question.

In a debate you need to provide an assessment that contradicts his assessment, not beg the question. Which is not you throwing more shit at the wall hoping to get something to stick. You would need someone with approximately the same credentials as he has or provide the hard material evidence yourself to make a valid argument.

If anyone were to take you seriously and use your wacky interpretation of argumentum ad verecundiam there would be no such thing as a reference and we would need to raise the dead and perform every scientific experiment ever done reinventing everything back to the beginning of time to get bonafide answers which is over the top preposterous, but thats why we love you.

Otherwise you are back to committing your nirvana fallacy which precedes and renders your AtA claim against me totally irellevant

state and validate your argument if you have one

as another alternative we can reel this back to before I quoted him if you prefer where in order to make your statements true I will turn the tables and demand the evidence you used to conclude that the city was not a military target which would force you to prove your claim that you cannot prove.

Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere.
[sm=boohoo.gif]







mnottertail -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 10:30:29 AM)

We are unsure of any argument you have had, since you have not validated it whatsoever by cartooning your asswipe.




WhoreMods -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:38:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere.

Why should he?
You've spent fifty pages failing to prove any of that about Dresden.




Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:50:44 AM)

now thats hilarious, youve spent 50 pages ranting 6 million jews with not so much as even one attempt to prove 6 million jews were holocausted.
what a top shelf hypocrite


if anything is admission of bullshit you are it


youve proven that you dont even know what proof is




mnottertail -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:52:27 AM)

because you were the dumbass that made a claim that Dresden was bombed by Churchill when he was photographed on holiday there in that time period Dresden was never bombed.




WhoreMods -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:56:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

now thats hilarious, youve spent 50 pages ranting 6 million jews with not so much as even one attempt to prove 6 million jews were holocausted.
what a top shelf hypocrite


if anything is admission of bullshit you are it


youve proven that you dont even know what proof is

You still haven't provided a citation for your claim that half a million died in the firebombing of Dresden.
You still haven't provided any evidence that Dresden had no military value as a target for bombing.
You've yet to even name one other German city that suffered comparable losses to bombing at the same time.
Shut up whining about other people not proving their claims until you've made some attempt to substantiate yours. You have cited nothing but bullshit, lies, and lying bullshit for the last fifty pages.




Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:58:07 AM)

and now you double down with lies. wtg




WhoreMods -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 11:59:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

and now you double down with lies. wtg

You can prove that our claims about Dresden are on the level then, can you?
If so, why haven't you at any point since starting this thread?




InfoMan -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 12:16:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

once again, you cant make a valid argument by begging the question. PLONK

the fact is he can be called into court as an expert witness to testify using his professional assessments which would trump your ipse dixit begging the question.

In a debate you need to provide an assessment that contradicts his assessment, not beg the question. Which is not you throwing more shit at the wall hoping to get something to stick. You would need someone with approximately the same credentials as he has or provide the hard material evidence yourself to make a valid argument.

If anyone were to take you seriously and use your wacky interpretation of argumentum ad verecundiam there would be no such thing as a reference and we would need to raise the dead and perform every scientific experiment ever done reinventing everything back to the beginning of time to get bonafide answers which is over the top preposterous, but thats why we love you.

Otherwise you are back to committing your nirvana fallacy which precedes and renders your AtA claim against me totally irellevant

state and validate your argument if you have one

as another alternative we can reel this back to before I quoted him if you prefer where in order to make your statements true I will turn the tables and demand the evidence you used to conclude that the city was not a military target which would force you to prove your claim that you cannot prove.

Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere.
[sm=boohoo.gif]


And Expert Testimonial would be questioned in the same exact manner - and if the expert could not provide a satisfactory answer - then his testimony would be brought into question. If the expert could not produce any answer to support is claim what so ever - then the testimony itself could be thrown out and the Jury commanded to disregard all his statements, and potentially that expert could be arrested for lying under oath.


Also - I've provided analysis, reasonable deduction, and logical statements which bring into question your citation's claim, thus fulfilling the requirement that an assessment which brings into contradiction statements that where asserted and thus require the opposition to refute the claim as per normal debate. What's more I've been entirely civil in this while you've been evasive, deflective, and aggressive by throwing out personal attacks.

My counter points have been 3 Fold.
1.) Division/Brigade Identification. Both of these assets are large, and thus are tracked by nations... As such - One should be able to identify the specific brigade or division which was deployed to a location If one was deployed.

2.) Casualties. If Wielun was targeted due to it having troops amassed within - then surely there would of been casualties of these troops documented, seeing as how 2/3rds of the city was destroyed/damaged through the bombing efforts.

3.) Inaccuracy. The Stuka Dive Bomber is not a saturation bomber, it does not carry a bay of gravity bombs which it just drops indiscriminately. It carries 1 heavy bomb and 2 light bombs which it deploys as it dives towards a target to ensure a high accuracy on bomb drops. Attacks with a Stuka are always deliberate due to the limited amount of munitions on hand combined with it's slow flight speed, and the relative danger of the dive bomb maneuver. There for - the idea that the 2 Stuka Wings in question continually 'missed' and simply accidentally destroyed 2/3rds of the city is a silly notion.




quote:

Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere. [sm=boohoo.gif]


The city had no production facilities which produced weapons of war.
The city had no large scale storage facility to store munitions or weapons.

there for it was not a military target.

and as a counter point...

No - they don't just 'sleep on the ground'
A division deployed in a defensive manner produces a significant impact on the area around it.

Troops dig fighting positions, trenches, and the foundation for emplacements and gun mounts. They set up tents to protect themselves from the elements and dig sanitation ditches for waste disposal. They set up paths for logistics, supply points for collection and distribution of weapons and materials, and provide basic humanitarian services to provide food water and medical aid to the troops.

None of which can be found in the documentation of Wielun after the bombing.
Not a single trench, fighting position, or even a hole for troops to shit in.




mnottertail -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 12:40:22 PM)

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/529412085

Churchill painting a scene in Dresden during 'the bombing'.





Real0ne -> RE: A Moment of Silence in Memory of The Holocaust (3/24/2017 1:20:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

once again, you cant make a valid argument by begging the question. PLONK

the fact is he can be called into court as an expert witness to testify using his professional assessments which would trump your ipse dixit begging the question.

In a debate you need to provide an assessment that contradicts his assessment, not beg the question. Which is not you throwing more shit at the wall hoping to get something to stick. You would need someone with approximately the same credentials as he has or provide the hard material evidence yourself to make a valid argument.

If anyone were to take you seriously and use your wacky interpretation of argumentum ad verecundiam there would be no such thing as a reference and we would need to raise the dead and perform every scientific experiment ever done reinventing everything back to the beginning of time to get bonafide answers which is over the top preposterous, but thats why we love you.

Otherwise you are back to committing your nirvana fallacy which precedes and renders your AtA claim against me totally irellevant

state and validate your argument if you have one

as another alternative we can reel this back to before I quoted him if you prefer where in order to make your statements true I will turn the tables and demand the evidence you used to conclude that the city was not a military target which would force you to prove your claim that you cannot prove.

Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere.
[sm=boohoo.gif]


And Expert Testimonial would be questioned in the same exact manner - and if the expert could not provide a satisfactory answer - then his testimony would be brought into question. If the expert could not produce any answer to support is claim what so ever - then the testimony itself could be thrown out and the Jury commanded to disregard all his statements, and potentially that expert could be arrested for lying under oath.


Also - I've provided analysis, reasonable deduction, and logical statements which bring into question your citation's claim, thus fulfilling the requirement that an assessment which brings into contradiction statements that where asserted and thus require the opposition to refute the claim as per normal debate. What's more I've been entirely civil in this while you've been evasive, deflective, and aggressive by throwing out personal attacks.

My counter points have been 3 Fold.
1.) Division/Brigade Identification. Both of these assets are large, and thus are tracked by nations... As such - One should be able to identify the specific brigade or division which was deployed to a location If one was deployed.

2.) Casualties. If Wielun was targeted due to it having troops amassed within - then surely there would of been casualties of these troops documented, seeing as how 2/3rds of the city was destroyed/damaged through the bombing efforts.

3.) Inaccuracy. The Stuka Dive Bomber is not a saturation bomber, it does not carry a bay of gravity bombs which it just drops indiscriminately. It carries 1 heavy bomb and 2 light bombs which it deploys as it dives towards a target to ensure a high accuracy on bomb drops. Attacks with a Stuka are always deliberate due to the limited amount of munitions on hand combined with it's slow flight speed, and the relative danger of the dive bomb maneuver. There for - the idea that the 2 Stuka Wings in question continually 'missed' and simply accidentally destroyed 2/3rds of the city is a silly notion.




quote:

Prove it was not a military target, troops often sleep on the ground in a knap sack, they do not need housing, and I intend to hold you to the same evidentiary standards you wish me to adhere. [sm=boohoo.gif]


The city had no production facilities which produced weapons of war.
The city had no large scale storage facility to store munitions or weapons.

there for it was not a military target.

and as a counter point...

No - they don't just 'sleep on the ground'
A division deployed in a defensive manner produces a significant impact on the area around it.

Troops dig fighting positions, trenches, and the foundation for emplacements and gun mounts. They set up tents to protect themselves from the elements and dig sanitation ditches for waste disposal. They set up paths for logistics, supply points for collection and distribution of weapons and materials, and provide basic humanitarian services to provide food water and medical aid to the troops.

None of which can be found in the documentation of Wielun after the bombing.
Not a single trench, fighting position, or even a hole for troops to shit in.



Enemy troops are a viable target merely walking down the streets ffs. geebus you have a wild fucking imagination wacked as it may be.

You are fishing trying to make a case on pure assumption that he is lying without any evidence to that effect what so ever. (Argument from ignorance fallacy)

In other words you have no horse in the race all you can do is pile one fallacy upon another, to come up with something that sounds good, and you cannot get around your nirvana fallacy.

We call that reving your engine

spindindininndindin


incidentally the first 2 runs were in the dark, the last was just after daybreak and in the fog, a stuka isnt an f22 you know [8|]







Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125