As usual, you fail to understand the burden of proof. You're the one making the assertion, so it's down to you to prove that there were British police involved. It wouldn't surprise me if there were. It seems to be an international problem, yet you seem keen to blame the West, as usual. If I provide a link to a Muslim doing something wrong, does that reflect on Islam as a whole?
That's not how this works ... you are familiar with the concept "innocent until proven guilty"? You have to prove brits were involved and from the sources you are posting there are none. No mention of British soldiers at all. The guardian has a lovely little habit of putting the outcome of stories next to the originals so you can see what happened. Read this please: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/14/military.kenya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
hence the usage of the word 'allegations' if you read what i initailly wrote, it asked a question, nothing more nothing less I could go into the legitimacy of the MOD's inquiry, but its self evident. My question also asked how do you prove Problem seems to be jumping to conclusions 1 - this particular debate was on a thread started be eddie, i think so not me. as far as I was concerned mick closed it, so end of story. 2 - asking a question doesnt 'make' you anything. does asking a question on figures suggest denial? 3- these people are too lazy to look up stuff. never provide evidence but expect it
Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed. It's one of the principles of logic. If you say that something is true, then it's up to you to prove that it is. It's not up to me to prove that it isn't. There are obvious exceptions, like the fact that we both exist, or you have nowhere to start. So why did you post an article about Israel and the US, then?
You clearly don't. You don't accept that the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim, which is moronic, frankly. Do you accept that bigfoot, alien abductions and fairies are true?
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question. There you go, the burden of proof. For someone to claim that something exists (and expect their claim to be taken as fact) there has to be proof of it. But to be fair you did say earlier that it was allegations, which you did provide a link for, I misread your assertation.
tbf mate you came into something with a couple pedants when they get cornered they start the whole provide a link to where its specifically says....... or where has sos and so said this in those 'exact' words it gets ludicrous and boring eventually, and is usually a defence mechanism eg Churchills diari9es and no mention of holocaust. I thought it was fairly common knowledge. I can google it etc no probs but no give me your exact source, with page numbers and highlighted in red. move on FFS. unless of course there is mention of the holocaust then fine this is GC not sociology 101 where we will get gradings then resorting to swearing and abuse isnt that a sign of losing an argument according to some Al;though I cant provide an exact source
How so? The Arabs were given 78% of Palestine unilaterally by the British in the 1920s as an "Arab Homeland" which no Jew was allowed to live in. The remainder was to be partitioned between a second Arab state and a Jewish State of Israel. This, the Arabs rejected out of hand and instead waged a war of annihilation against Israel - a war which they lost but still goes on to this day.
Except for the fact that this lying **** said specifically: "I know for example that there are allegations of british soldiers involved in the child sex trade in places where they are 'peacekeepers'. The accusers are 100% certain but it is difficult to prove and easier to cover up. same with drugs". What he has done is dredge up a story totally unrelated to the allegations he made up. He was talking about UK UN troops because I mentioned UK UN Troops. Instead he has furiously googled until he found some tenous link to allegations made against UK troops in Kenya 60 Years ago. That's 1951 by my reckoning. The Troops "Falsely" accused were not on peacekeeping duties, that article clearly states they were on training exercises and there is no mention of chidren being forced into having sex. Therefore he is a lying dick with a massive ****ing chip on his shoulder.
