CNN launches Argumentum ad hominem attack (argument directed at the person) at Hamas leader.

you think that Hamas is reasonable and they don't really mean the words that come from their mouths.

People chant 'agumentum ad hominem' here as though it were some magical phrase of power which puts its utterer in the right on any occasion. It does not, and it is almost never used correctly.

The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem refers to a response attacking the person making the argument, by saying that he or he is unworthy to speak, or to be taken seriously, for reasons unrelated to the argument made. An example might be to say that since a person has gone bankrupt recently, his opinion that the United States should provide military assistance to Iraq cannot be taken seriously. The flaw cited, true or not, has no relevance to the subject. But if a person has expressed the opinion that stock in the Beefsteak Mine is an excellent buy at ten cents a share, pointing out that he filed for bankruptcy last month is not irrelevant to the point at hand, but speaks to the quality of the person's judgement on financial matters. Similarly, if a person states it as a fact that, say, the U.S. government is buying up great quantities of ammunition in order to drive up the price and so disarm the people, pointing out that earlier this person stated as a fact that the government has a machine that creates and directs tornadoes and uses it to destroy resistance to tyranny in the heartland is wholly appropriate, because it speaks to both judgement and pre-disposition, establishing the person is delusional and is in actual fact not worthy of being taken seriously. If someone predicts that, say, President Obama is going to resign in disgrace before the year is out to avoid impeachment, it is wholly legitimate to point out that earlier, this person predicted President Obama would be defeated in a landslide by Romney, thus establishing that this person's predictions are worth less than those of the average 'psychic friends' operator.

A leader or spokesman for Hamas being called to account for having circulated the classic blood libel, and having stating his aim is expulsion of all Jews from Israel whose ancestry traces to immigrants arriving there in the twentieth century, is wholly appropriate, and in no sense an argumentum ad hominem. It speaks directly to the worth of any statement he may subsequently make avowing an interest in any form of peaceful accommodation, or that he and his fellows are unfairly described as driven by hate. Viewed in the coldest light, it even calls into question whether the man is so gripped by delusion that it might be an error to consider him wholly sane. And of course, it would be quite easy to settle the matter when called to account for having made such statements: the man would need only to state that he does not stand by them, that he knows the blood libel is a despicable slander he regrets having circulated as truth, and that he knows he cannot expel nearly six million Jews from Israel, and does not desire to do so. That is all it would take, and if the man will not say that and move on, one is entitled to wonder why this is....

into an attack on Hamas in general as not worthy of negotiating with in peace talks in Cairo, where only Israel is not present, is not this the very definition of the definition? That is exactly the Israeli governments position, no negotiations to peace, only end to have "quiet".

Perhaps you didn't see the CNN segment. You are not putting my OP in the context I put it in.

And holding up the blood libel words, also used once by a certain almost VP Sarah Palin, what do you make of America forgiving her for that?

He has been a major spokesman for his organization for years, and you do neither him nor yourself any service by pretending he is a person of no consequence.

I am unaware the United States at large has forgiven Palin for even breathing, let alone any specific statement, though she certainly has her fan base, composed of people I despise and have no difficulty in saying so. Of course, she holds no official position, and is certainly not an accredited spokesperson or representative of any armed movement with a portion of government currently engaged in hostilities with a state. And if you like citing logical fallacies, you are by citing here and some supposed American tolerance for her, coming at least pretty close to a classic tu quoque....

Sarah Palin to the leader of hamas? I can't stand even hearing her voice but she is not responsible for the murder of innocent people either. Wow

And then take a look at the post being replied to....

"Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints."

Osama Hamdan (Arabic: أسامة حمدان‎, Åʋsámɑë Hɑmdán; born 1965) is the top representative of Hamas in Lebanon and is a member of the organization's politburo. He is a member of the Arab National Congress and of the Arab Islamic Conference of the Board of Trustees of the Jerusalem Institute in Lebanon.[1]


In 1998, Hamdan was appointed as Hamas representative in Lebanon, a post he still holds. In 2004, he served as Hamas' spokesman in Cairo during a dialogue between Palestinian factions. He has also participated in talks between Hamas and European officials.[1] Hamdan has advocated Palestinian unity talks and in an interview with Al-Arabiya on May 20, 2009, he said "I understand that each of us [Hamas and Fatah ] must set conditions to reach an agreement. National dialogue must be based on national interests of the Palestinian people..."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Hamdan

He is not some random fellow, but an accredited spokesman with some heft in his organization.

And by doing so, have become mine....

"For the Snark was a boojum, you see...."

I've been pretty critical of Israel in my posts at DU. But I was disgusted with Hamden. Blitzer (who I dislike a lot) gave Hamden three chances to denounce his words about Jews having persecuted Christians in the Holy Land and killing them to use their blood in making their bread. That's supposedly some kind of common and deplorable myth that circulates in the more fanatical and barbaric circles of Islam in the region, kind of like the crap involving the elders of Zion. To QUICKLY get rid of that question and move on to discuss the issues with Wolf, all Hamden had to do was retract his former words of hate. He didn't, he kept dodging the issue, and he just confirmed to me that some people on both sides of the Israel-Palestine argument will never really go for peace and are basically individuals I would write off as worthless. Even if Hamden truly believed those words about Jews consuming Gentile blood, he would let it go if he cared about his own Palestinian people and would try to male a gesture for peace.

Sure I wish Wolf Blitzer was even-handed and pointed out Israel's failures and previous racist statements of their political leaders. But someone has to make the first gesture towards peace. All Hamden had to do was retract what he previously said and move on to some constructive discussion. He didn't and it just reinforced my feeling that this conflict won't be resolved any time soon.

The disgusting calculus of both sides weighing the benefit of killing each other with the cost of also inevitably killing innocents and children is the discussion no one wants to have.

and yet the words of major Hamas spokesman are to be dismissed? Got it.

I think however putting a Hamas official to the test as to whether he can be conciliatory or not can be revealing. What I found most important here was not that Hamden had this racist belief IN THE PAST. It was that he could not bring himself to drop it and renounce it in the present. When push comes to shove, he seems to be more in love with his old hatreds than in the idea of peace for his own people now. I wonder how many other individuals in Hamas feel that way. I've no doubt that the same is true for some in the Israeli-Likud leadership. As I stated, someone has got to make the first move for peace. Hamden could have shown leadership to his own people by denouncing the myths. Such acts by Arab leadership would put the onus on Israel to express their own words of conciliation.

The OP is causing responses missing the point of the OP, maybe I should try to find the video, 5 minutes of it, and post it. Then for sure people will watch it all and put it in context and get the point.

I will get my crack research team on it right away, I had to fire them just last week.

My exposure of the CNN propaganda is not to defend the hateful words of one person, it is to expose how the words spoken by the one person are used to attack an entire organization, painted with the same propaganda brush. Of course I will be attacked, using the same attack, to deflect from the exposure of the propaganda, game on.

"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!", but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem

He was talking about the accident - hitting the UN school that led to US condemnation.
Oh you should have heard his tone of voice. Not one of the morons who host the show challenged him re the accident which was shocking since apparently there were several such accidents even though the UN had given clear locations of these shelters.

letting the media decide for them?

Watching CNN now and are returning to the demonization of same one person. New PTH (glances to her left to read the script)......"A Hamas spokesperson makes controversial remarks about claiming Jews use Christian blood to make Matza balls?", tilting tone of voice to show disapproval, "coming up after commercial we will play the video....(again and again and again....)

Cut to photo of their target, complete with text: "Blood Libel Charge", in big block letters, as camera zooms on another photo of the doomed target.

Not bad, not bad.....

Apparently they think seeking the truth is hard work

large numbers of people don't care. Remember it can never happen to them

The official Israeli explanation, as of last night, anyway, was that they were attempting to kill some Hamas people on a motorcycle that was passing by the school. So they were trying to hit something moving in the road nearby, it was not a stray round or something that struck where it did by gross mistake. I have pointed out before that the standard an attacker must meet when attacking a legitimate military target, if doing so could endanger non-combatants, is that the direct military benefit gained by neutralizing that target must be so great as to outweigh the risk of harm to non-combatants. I understand people may view that balance differently, and that reasonable people of sound mind and good heart might come to different conclusions as to where it rests in specific instances, but as someone willing to give latitude to claims of military necessity, I assure you that there is no way in Hell a reasonable argument can be made for the proposition that the direct military benefit of killing a couple of people on a motorcycle, however militant and combatant they may be, is or can be sufficiently great as to outweigh the risk of harm to non-combatants inherent in trying to land artillery in the street alongside a facility known to be sheltering several thousand non-combatants.

I was using his choice of word. War crimes were committed and Bibi must pay.

I expect you will understand why I desired to state the thing explicitly here.

The best construction one can put on it can be summarized as "not giving a shit", and the other possibilities go downward from there.

We both know no one will swing for it, though someone ought to, but people who support Israel have a duty to look it in the face, just as they expect people who support Arab Palestine to look the misdeeds of its armed militants in the face.

Morals and ethics don't amount to much unless you abide by them.

You can defend hamas? How?

is just the price of war and we should accept civilian deaths without remorse.

When did warfare become a contest to see how many innocents can be killed? When do the warriors become the ones who suffer the least? When did we accept that?

to defend her statements. She's certainly photogenic, just their type.

What any of these vile psychopaths on either side don't care about is the civilians who are butchered and maimed. And Israel is doing most of the killing.


'MOTHERS OF ALL PALESTINIANS SHOULD ALSO BE KILLED,' SAYS ISRAELI POLITICIAN

As the situation widely deteriorates in the Gaza Strip, Israeli parliament member and law-maker Ayelet Shaked has stigmatized all Palestinians as terrorists, wishing death on all Palestinians while supporting the Israeli military assault.

On Monday Shaked quoted this on her Facebook page: "Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," said Shaked. Standing behind the operations on Gaza, "they are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists," Shaked added.

http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all-palestinians-should-also-be-killed-says-israeli-politician

For the most part they're all bad actors and some both meanings of the phrase.

unfairly attacked for their wall to wall cheerleading of the IDF and the current
Israel government....surprising Rather who then gave a generic comment about how this happened to him all the time about a century ago and not to worry about it....to the great relief of the paid actor pretending to know anything not off her written script.

The good old media cup runneth over with the victimization defence, it is a good sign they are feeling the deserved heat due to their heavy bias.