Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Ah sure look, more of the same. Arbitrarily come up with your own definitions to suit your own agenda whenever you like and try to claim they are the only meanings. It's constant. Over and over again.

I have no time for RBB, but you don't get to decide what he meant just to suit your own agenda. Maybe he did mean a call for violence. Who knows. I merely told you the fact that intifada does not necessarily mean violence. You don't like that, but you are wrong.

As I said, keep bringing it up and highlighting your mistake if you wish. That is completely your prerogative.

Logic may not be a strong point, but a statement that "Intifada does not necessarily mean violence" is not negated in any way, shape or form by giving some link to something which involved violence. It would negate a statement that "Intifada never means violence", but that is not what was said. I even provided you with a link giving you the etymology of the term.

Let me give you an example which is closer to home. The statement "Winning an All Ireland does not necessarily mean you have to score a goal" is not negated by a link showing Dublin beat Mayo by 2-14 to 0-15 in 2020.

But feel free to keep highlighting you were wrong.

It's very childish to keep throwing your toys out of the pram. As I said, we are back to the Varadkar "lost" sh1te. You don't get to decide what meanings can and cannot be assigned to other people's words - when multiple meanings are possible and understood by rational people - just because a particular interpretation suits your agenda today.

I've already explained it to you multiple times. And given you an example of Mayo getting beaten which should have made it easier to understand. If you want me to give you other similar examples to explain the logic, I can do that too. Even if I just used examples of Mayo being beaten in finals I'd have enough to keep going for hours. But we'd be going around in circles. And I don't see the point.

And to make you happier, here is a recent source. Wikipedia from just now

Feel free to correct it to restrict the meaning to your definition if you want.

The statement I made that "Intifada does not necessarily mean violence" is correct. QED. You are tilting at windmills

Intifada basically means civil uprising.

Again, you are wrong.

You can ask that tool what he meant if you like. but neither you nor RBB gets to redefine the meaning so that my statement is rendered incorrect. The statement does not purport to constrain what you can only mean when you use the word, nor does it purport to constrain what RBB can only mean when he uses the word. It is a factually correct statement that the word does not necessarily mean violence.

Not to be giving you a history lesson, but there was also non-violent resistance in the countries names against their colonial oppressors. So your conclusion may not be as sound as you think. That's an aside and irrelevant to the logic above.

What part of the Palestinian Authority encouraging and sponsoring terrorism and suicide bombings by paying pensions to the families of these deluded murderers do you have difficulty understanding?

What??? There is being fooled by Hamas propaganda and there is enthusiastically embracing it.

Do you remember that the doctors told us that there were no Hamas in the hospital? And then we saw the CCTV.

Do you remember that the doctors told us that there were no tunnels under the hospital? And then we saw the videos of the tunnels.

The doctors living under the Hamas regime have been lying every day since October 7th. I am not going to judge whether that was because of fear of reprisal from the Hamas terrorists or whether they were enthusiastically supporting the Hamas terrorists, but there is no doubt they lied.

So, you don't think the doctors are afraid of Hamas?

Do you think anyone is afraid of Hamas?

From memory, doctors didn't say there were no tunnels but they had seen no evidence of Hamas fighters or weapons inside the hospital.

Interesting that the regime discovered no CCTV footage of Hamas men inside the Al Shifa hospital, even though they found months worth of footage, going back before and after October 7th.

A new low?

We have had rape apologists and denials all today but 'tarnishing' the reputation of doctors who made false statements (for whatever reasons) is a new low?

Just because they are doctors?

Maybe for you.

In the real world doctora can lie, commit crimes, be mistaken, duped or threatened under duress to lie... as any other profession. And pointing this out is not tarnishing their reputations.

So that seems to suggest they lied then? For whatever reasons.

But proves why doubting their statements on such matters is not tarnishing the reputation of doctors.