Munk Debate on Zionism

[shack]

Or maybe Murray is just a more convincing wordsmith?

What does being a wordsmith mean? He lies but in such a way that you guys can't find ways to dispute it? I guess that's your problem.

To me, being a wordsmith means he is more adept at articulating the truth and exposing/cutting through the lies of his debating opponents. Maybe that's just jealousy from your side. I can understand why you have a problem with that.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yet somehow, this small number wags the tail of American lawmakers. And you think that the US will outlaw AIPAC.

That's loser talk, Geno. You consistently contradict yourself.

AIPAC is on the ballot now, not behind the scenes.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719817547195822090

 

[Frankfooter]

But your heart is not filled with hate and bloodlust. Just lust of a different kind.

Not like yours?

Here's the news of today.
The Lance thinks that Israel has killed 186,000 Palestinians or more.

genocide, Shazi, its genocide

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810003687269388795

 

[shack]

The Lance thinks that Israel has killed 186,000 Palestinians or more.

They "think". Did they fit all 186,000 of them under a slide cover and look under a microscope? Because that's what happens in lab studies, the Lancet's stated methodology.

Please tell us, Geno, what methodology did they use to arrive at this number? Did they use the world's biggest microscope?

Your lies are becoming more and more absurd.

 

[Klatuu]

They "think". Did they fit all 186,000 of them under a slide cover and look under a microscope? Because that's what happens in lab studies, the Lancet's stated methodology.

Please tell us, Geno, what methodology did they use to arrive at this number? Did they use the world's biggest microscope?

Your lies are becoming more and more absurd.

Every accusation by a Ziontologist is a confession.

 

[Frankfooter]

They "think". Did they fit all 186,000 of them under a slide cover and look under a microscope? Because that's what happens in lab studies, the Lancet's stated methodology.

Please tell us, Geno, what methodology did they use to arrive at this number? Did they use the world's biggest microscope?

Your lies are becoming more and more absurd.

Shazi, the Lance is incredibly well respected and trusted.
You are not.

The World Food Programme says half a million more could die at the hand of the zionists you cheer for.
When will you stop supporting genocide?
How many dead is enough for you, is there a limit?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810252991716368464

 

[NotADcotor]

Not like yours?

Here's the news of today.
The Lance thinks that Hamas has killed 186,000 Palestinians or more.
and it makes me so fucking hard. I am so going to bust a nut.

There I fixed it for you.

Also if you actually look at the post you shared, it's from the the Correspondence section. Basically a letter to the editor I am guessing, not a peer reviewed article.
But you don't care about that do you
Also a google search shows that the only people sharing this are pro murder websites and anti western socialist hate mongers. 3 pages in and not a single serious news agency has shared this
Maybe there is a reason for that. Ya think. Oh wait, either you don't, or you lie anyways.

From lancet itself

https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish

Content type What it is
Correspondence
Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.
So when YOUR source told you "The Lancet has just estimated the death toll of the Gaza genocide at 186,000 people or more"
He LIED, It wasn't lancet who did they, they were just printing a letter they received with no peer review. He tried to present it as an article from Lancet but like Natural News he flat out lied. The Economist, also prints letters and although they may or may not be legit it isn't a position of the Economist.

So now that I have shown that at least one of your sources LIED to you, what will you do with that information. WIll you just respond with a HAHA emojy like that troll Mitchell and go along your merry ways spreading lies and hate?

This is what you get when you get your info from randos on Twitter. SUrely you have seen enough of this from Poutards on Ukraine threads to know that his is not a good path to knowledge. But you don't give a shit as you as you get your 2 minutes of hate in.

 

[NotADcotor]

Every accusation by a Ziontologist is a confession.

See my response. How is that a confession.
A cute little quote but much like Trump Derangement Syndrome it's deviod of any actual thought or meaning.

 

[Frankfooter]

There I fixed it for you.

Also if you actually look at the post you shared, it's from the the Correspondence section. Basically a letter to the editor I am guessing, not a peer reviewed article.
But you don't care about that do you
Also a google search shows that the only people sharing this are pro murder websites and anti western socialist hate mongers. 3 pages in and not a single serious news agency has shared this
Maybe there is a reason for that. Ya think. Oh wait, either you don't, or you lie anyways.

From lancet itself

https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish

Content type What it is
Correspondence
Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.
So when YOUR source told you "The Lancet has just estimated the death toll of the Gaza genocide at 186,000 people or more"
He LIED, It wasn't lancet who did they, they were just printing a letter they received with no peer review. He tried to present it as an article from Lancet but like Natural News he flat out lied. The Economist, also prints letters and although they may or may not be legit it isn't a position of the Economist.

So now that I have shown that at least one of your sources LIED to you, what will you do with that information. WIll you just respond with a HAHA emojy like that troll Mitchell and go along your merry ways spreading lies and hate?

This is what you get when you get your info from randos on Twitter. SUrely you have seen enough of this from Poutards on Ukraine threads to know that his is not a good path to knowledge. But you don't give a shit as you as you get your 2 minutes of hate in.

Hmm, another tough choice.
Do I trust a lying, genocidal zionist anonymously posting on terb or do I trust the Lancet.

Read the 'correspondence' and tell me why you think its wrong.
That should be good for a laugh, except that laughing at really twisted and hateful people is not satisfying.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

You're pushing genocide, ND.
There is no reason to trust anything you say or take you any more seriously than some kkk or nazi.

Just scurry away.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809968112701424087

 

[Frankfooter]

See my response. How is that a confession.
A cute little quote but much like Trump Derangement Syndrome it's deviod of any actual thought or meaning.

318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of genocide
(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

 

[shack]

Shazi, the Lance is incredibly well respected and trusted.

Mahatma Gandhi was well respected and trusted. But I don't think that anyone asked him to evaluate Einstein's theories.

Do you know why? Because he would have been out of his element. He would be assessing something of which he had no knowledge or experience.

That is the Lancet. They are out of their element. Counting dead people in a war zone is NOT what they do. They are a scientific peer review publication, not funeral home attendants.

You are embarrassing yourself once again trying to pass that off as having any legitimacy.

 

[Frankfooter]

That is the Lancet. They are out of their element. Counting dead people in a war zone is NOT what they do. They are a scientific peer review publication, not funeral home attendants.

You are embarrassing yourself once again trying to pass that off as having any legitimacy.

Shazi, how sad you are.
Sure, if we used Ghandi to count the dead it would be a bad idea, outside his expertise and like 186,000 Palestinians, he's dead.

The Lancet uses the standard numbers of counted dead in wars to estimate the totals.
Its likely on the low end, according to them.

Are you still proud of Israel killing 186,000 refugees all stuck in a giant concentration camp?
Is this the kind of winning you've been dreaming of?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810107777924120927

 

[shack]

The Lance thinks that Israel has killed 186,000 Palestinians or more.

That claim is a big lie from start to finish.

The Lancet DOES NOT believe that in the slightest. As I'd assumed, you've been lying all along about the Lancet.

The Lancet, itself, conducted no such study. The Lancet is also not making any claim at all as to how many are presumed dead. They are simply reporting that a study was done (by a Lebanese radio host and a cardiologist neither of which qualifies them as experts). It is the same as reporting that a political poll was taken and these are the results of the poll.

The Lancet is not in the least vouching for the findings of this study. Just reporting that this study was conducted.

As well, the study does not say that Israel killed those people. The study is simply estimating (using lots of significant assumptions and accepting Hamas' numbers at face value, which is a joke) how many have been killed but are attributing no blame or how the deaths occurred.

 

[Klatuu]

One of the many creepy organizations that act on behalf of a foreign government and Ziontology

Internal memo reveals Anti-Defamation League surveillance of leftwing activist

Self-styled anti-hate group tracked Black organizer who opposed links between US police and Israeli military

www.theguardian.com

 

[shack]

Shazi, how sad you are.

Geno, how much of a liar you are.

The Lancet uses the standard numbers of counted dead in wars to estimate the totals.
Its likely on the low end, according to them.

Read my post.

The Lancet used no numbers at all because they did not conduct the study. They simply reported that a study was done and they are not vouching for the results. The only numbers used in the study were from Hamas claims and taken at face value (by obviously biased authors). As you yourself claimed (as did the authors) that under the conditions it is extremely difficult to provide accurate numbers.

Since The Lancet did not conduct the study and voiced no opinion on it, your attempt to defend the study by mentioning The Lancet's reputation is irrelevant.

 

[shack]

There I fixed it for you.

Also if you actually look at the post you shared, it's from the the Correspondence section. Basically a letter to the editor I am guessing, not a peer reviewed article.
But you don't care about that do you
Also a google search shows that the only people sharing this are pro murder websites and anti western socialist hate mongers. 3 pages in and not a single serious news agency has shared this
Maybe there is a reason for that. Ya think. Oh wait, either you don't, or you lie anyways.

From lancet itself

https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish

Content type What it is
Correspondence
Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.
So when YOUR source told you "The Lancet has just estimated the death toll of the Gaza genocide at 186,000 people or more"
He LIED, It wasn't lancet who did they, they were just printing a letter they received with no peer review. He tried to present it as an article from Lancet but like Natural News he flat out lied. The Economist, also prints letters and although they may or may not be legit it isn't a position of the Economist.

So now that I have shown that at least one of your sources LIED to you, what will you do with that information. WIll you just respond with a HAHA emojy like that troll Mitchell and go along your merry ways spreading lies and hate?

This is what you get when you get your info from randos on Twitter. SUrely you have seen enough of this from Poutards on Ukraine threads to know that his is not a good path to knowledge. But you don't give a shit as you as you get your 2 minutes of hate in.

Good work. Geno is a bigger liar than I thought. I knew that The Lancet didn't conduct the study but now you say that they didn't even report on it. How scummy can one get?

 

[shack]

Hmm, another tough choice.
Do I trust a lying, genocidal zionist anonymously posting on terb or do I trust the Lancet.

Stop lying. The Lancet did not post any article.

 

[Klatuu]

That claim is a big lie from start to finish.

The Lancet DOES NOT believe that in the slightest. As I'd assumed, you've been lying all along about the Lancet.

The Lancet, itself, conducted no such study. The Lancet is also not making any claim at all as to how many are presumed dead. They are simply reporting that a study was done (by a Lebanese radio host and a cardiologist neither of which qualifies them as experts). It is the same as reporting that a political poll was taken and these are the results of the poll.

The Lancet is not in the least vouching for the findings of this study. Just reporting that this study was conducted.
Martin
As well, the study does not say that Israel killed those people. The study is simply estimating (using lots of significant assumptions and accepting Hamas' numbers at face value, which is a joke) how many have been killed but are attributing no blame or how the deaths occurred.

Shazi…your powers of research are virtually non existent. You completely missed one author (deliberately I suspect) and misidentified the others.

The authors:

Martin McKee is a member of the editorial board of the Israel Journal of Health Policy Research and of the International Advisory Committee of the Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research. MM was co-chair of the Institute's 2016 6th International Jerusalem Conference on Health Policy, but writes in a personal capacity. He also collaborates with researchers in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon. He is professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Rasha Khatib is a Clinical Epidemiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences

Salim Yusuf is Clinical Epidemiologist and Cardiologist at McMaster University. He is an Oxford graduate.

 

[shack]

Shazi, how sad you are.

How sad YOU are Geno. You posted a letter to the editor and claimed that it was a study conducted by the Lancet. As I keep saying and you keep proving me right, not a single thing you post can be trusted, but this one makes me want to puke.

I'll decline any further commentary on my part because it would get me banned.

 

[Klatuu]

How sad YOU are Geno. You posted a letter to the editor and claimed that it was a study conducted by the Lancet. As I keep saying and you keep proving me right, not a single thing you post can be trusted, but this one makes me want to puke.

I'll decline any further commentary on my part because it would get me banned.

As shown above, every accusation by a Ziontologist is a confession.