A short trip to Wikipedia:
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The strawman you built is pretty obvious: "You are heavily implying they are lying, and are known to lie". I did not imply they are lying, and I did not imply that they are known to lie. I stated pretty explicitly that they are, and I quote, "not exactly known for the accuracy of their reports". Even a child unfamiliar with the concept of a strawman argument can tell the difference between one and the other. The former denotes fabrication, and the latter denotes concealment. It is clear as day that I implied the latter. And, lo and behold, you yourself inadvertently validated my proposition when you were unable to provide a single instance of their reports being verified for accuracy by any other source.
If you didn't intend to argue a strawman, you would have stopped right there and then. What you did instead was argue that I have no evidence that they are lying - a strawman you made up and then bravely took down. Can you see the similarities between what you did and the definition of a strawman argument? I do, plainly and clearly. Yet, you keep demanding proof of existence for something you falsely attributed to me, and you act indignant when you get none. Lots of good luck with that.
I also, plainly and clearly, explained why I will not allow you to divert, digress, or deflect into subjects that go beyond those I raised in my posts. And it's not because I have no answers. It's because you don't. And when you don't, it is tempting to divert to "a much larger debate", as you put it, when you keep losing a narrower one. However, if you insist on having this much larger debate, I made you an offer, and I quote: "you are welcome to start your own thread. If you do, count on me to bring up a shitload of rants against HAMAS for comparison, but in the context of this thread, I am not biting". You see, I am not biting not for the reason you made up (I have plenty of answers), but because I expect you to end one strawman argument before you begin the next one.
= new reply since forum marked as read