Sophistry's High Horse: "Alterman's Blacklist" on MSNBC

Assuming MSNBC edits writers for grammar - a reasonable assumption - why don't they also require their writers to respect the basic the rules of logic?

Logical fallacies have been known for over two thousand years, and MSNBC should reject Alterman's submissions if he can't respect the rules of logic, just as they'd reject his submissions if he flouted the rules of grammar. Avoidance of these fallacies and sophisms used to be taught in writing classes. They are not hard to spot.

Worse, the essence of Alterman's stance is that logic is not the rule book, and facts are not the final arbiter.

Are there facts which decide an issue, or "narratives," like tall-tales, that level the playing field between good and evil?

Alterman's method, sadly, was used by Nazi's to justify their complaints against every group they took "revenge" against.

Oddly enough, Alterman's method was also used by Arabs to justify killing Jews before WW II, going as far back as the mid-19th century. These rationalizations were used by Islamic Arabs, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalsem, to justify an alliance with Hitler and admiration for Nazism, an admiration that continues as an unbroken line from the Holocost until today, among significant numbers of Islamic Arabs.

These rationalizations of "grievances" were used by Islamic Arabs before the enclave called Israel was partitioned 1948. History might suggest that this was, logically, to ensure that Jews wouldn't be at the mercy of a majority in Trans-Jordan that would slaughter them, as they had been slaughtered in that region up to then, as they had been slaughtered in Europe.

This drawing of fraudulently equivalent "narratives" continued after 1948, when Islamic Arabs were deprived of the right to rule over a Jewish minority they way they have ruled over other minorities in modern times (Aremenians, Muslim Kurds, Druze, Copts, etc.etc.) This cry of Arab "grievances" continued when democratic Israel, which would historically include Muslim Arabs in its government, was attacked on the instant of its protective formation by the surrounding Arab states, with the goal of total annhiliation and extermination.

These complaints against Israel's very existence were made by Arafat in 1964, when the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, as defined by the pre-1967 borders they sometimes say (to Western audiences) they now respect.

This assertion of competing narratives continued when Israel was attacked again, when in 1967 armies formed on its borders and it wisely countered the planned attack and decimated the forces.

These in fact twisted rationalizations continued after 1967 in the statements and charters and educational campaigns so similar to the Nazi Youth indoctrinations, that stated the purpose of the PLO and other terrorist organizations was to destory Israel.

This notion of "tit-for-tat" became ever more common as the era of suicide bombers began, reaping the fruit of their hysterical propaganda campaigns and grotesque indoctrination of children. Why, they have to resort to extreme measures, right?

Just as the suicide dive bombers of the totalitarian Japanese government crashed their planes into American ships, so the totalitarian "live-bombers" of the Islamicist Arab World blow themselves up in the midst of a Seder dinner.

And now the Arab Islamicist tyrannies that rule all the Arab countries say they "just want to ge back to the 1967 borders" they previously wanted to destroy - of course, while in Arabic they tell their populations that they don't mean it, yes, of course they still want to destroy Israel.

What fools are we? What sort of fool do they have writing for MSNBC? What fool would treat the anti-Israel movement as anything other than a continuation of the Nazi program (or pogrom) by another name?

Consider: what if the German Jews had struck back and defeated the Nazis on their own land, took part of German-majority lands and created an enclave? What if the Nazi's were defeated again and again, and then decades later, complained about the lands they lost, and demanded the "right of return" to the enclave they fought to destroy, as they fought to destroy the people of that enclave, from the very beginning?

That "thought experiment" is the application of logic to facts, not an arbitrary "narrative" that competes, like competing fibs of two children who got into a fight, with some other equally valid "narrative."

The following is proven, from the history and principles of the Arab Islamicists: just as the Nazi's would have no Jews living amongst them, now the Arab Islamicists would have no "Arab land" populated or governed by a majority of non-Muslims. No majority Jewish population or government on Arab land, no majority Armenians, or Druze.

Face the facts, Alterman. Narratives are things repeated around a campfire. Facts are found on the ground, like the shrapnel unleashed on innocents by a death-worshiping Palestinian suicide bomber.

...from Logicman (let's have some logic, man!)