//Does JM by sharing this endorse the views of every single person that shared these videos?//

Did he share posts from them as well?

//Similarly, your logic is deficient//

1. IF people are on the left THEN they don't do their homework properly.
2. I am on the left.
3. Therefore: I don't do my homework properly.

Nope, that looks like a valid modus ponens argument to me. No affirming the consequent there. I disagree with the truth of the conditional statement, but the argument is valid even though it's unsound. On the other hand;

1. IF people are on the left THEN they don't do their homework properly.
2. Shadow is not on the left.
3. Therefore Shadow does his homework properly.

Denies the antecedent and is thus fallacious.

Toni,

Your logic is that because BF shared these videos, whoever shares these videos is endorsing BF, even if they had no idea of who BF is? Extending the logic, they must also be endorsing the opinions and ideology of every one else that shared these videos.

Even blind Freddy could see that this is ridiculous.

Social media 101, most people are connected to hundreds or thousands of people. When connections share information or videos that they find interesting it comes up on everyone's page to whom they are connected to, and all that is required to share it again is one mouse click. Virtually no one does any research on the provenance of the material that they share and to expect so is extreme idiocy.

Similarly,

Your first line of your logic

"IF people are on the left THEN they don't do their homework properly." would only be valid if what I'd said was: "unlike EVERYBODY on the left I am not given to commentary on parties or institutions without some research."

As this is patently false your entire line of logic justifying the offense to your delicate sensibilities is complete bollocks.

Well folks I think we have arrived at the nub of it.

Shadow Minister wrote;

“Given that the jihadis and Al Qaeda standard modus operandi was to use schools and hospitals as cover for their operatives and you are making the outrageous claims of war crimes, the onus is on you to show that the hospitals were Jihadi free. Good luck with that.”

This was exactly the mindset of those prosecuting the war in Iraq and the Battle of Fallujah in particular. Unless concrete evidence could be obtained to the contrary then medical centres were deemed to be used by insurgents and therefore legitimate targets.

This grotesque debasement of the rules of armed conflict led to horrendous outcomes for the civilian population and insurgents in places like Fallujah. Their access to life saving medical interventions during the conflict were either severely limited or made impossible. This was flagged as a war crime by both the UN and other international bodies.

Jim Molan brags about his pivotal role in the decision making during this phase of the war. There is no doubt in my mind in the very least he has a case to answer.

There are many fawning, partisan, sycophants who are prepared to support Molan and his actions without question.

This is not what we should be about as a country though. Britain had its inquiry into the Iraq war, ours is long overdue.

SR,

You claim: "This was exactly the mindset of those prosecuting the war in Iraq and the Battle of Fallujah in particular. Unless concrete evidence could be obtained to the contrary then medical centers were deemed to be used by insurgents and therefore legitimate targets."

That's pure bollocks. Conflating my general comment to specific actions taken in a war zone is the most desperate lie I have seen from you in years.

Yet again I ask you whether you have any specific information on war crimes (as defined by the Geneva convention and not your pisscat mates down the pub) committed under the direction of JM?

Otherwise a grovelling apology similar to Adam Bent's is due.

//"IF people are on the left THEN they don't do their homework properly." would only be valid if what I'd said was: "unlike EVERYBODY on the left I am not given to commentary on parties or institutions without some research."//

When you refer to 'the left' as a set, it is assumed that you refer to all members of that set unless you specify otherwise. Because otherwise you'd refer to a subset rather than the whole set.

Toni,

WRT "unlike the left I am not given to commentary on parties or institutions without some research."

I am not referring to the left as a set. You are trying to apply a statement made in general terms to be specific. This is both a failure in logic and the use of English.

E.G. If I say "The Finns like to holiday in July" using the same sentence format, I am implying that most Finns like to holiday in July, and only an idiot would believe that my statement includes every single Finn in every circumstance.

However, if you are determined to take offence, go ahead, but, if you want sympathy buy a dog.