Cherry picking a single detail out of a complex situation doesn’t suddenly make it a simple situation.

Is it a “detail” that fails to include very important context (none of which you can seemingly specify) or is it genocide, something with so much weight that you are afraid to even mention it despite my repeated reminders that it is the topic here?

One of the challenges of evasive and bad faith behavior is that the little quips and pretenses can easily become inconsistent.

Anyways, the actual topic is pretty straightforward. There is a genocide. You should not support those perpetrating it and should instead work against them. So far, you have offered no rebuttal to this outside of straw men and vagaries and posturing.

That is logically fallacious. As is the rest of your argument, which is based on that logical fallacy.

Parrots can repeat many phrases they hear, but they don’t understand their meaning.

Logical fallacies are a set of ways a person can make errors in thinking. The whole point of them is that some nerds thought they were common or important enough to deserve a name. Reflexively accusing me of logical fallacies without naming any, right after I explained how you were using one? Obviously schoolyard “I’m rubber you’re gkue” pantomiming. No understanding, no applicability, just defensive posturing.

And blaming me using disinformation

What disinformation? What did I blame you for?

because I pointed out the fact that your argument is both fallacious and nonsensical, does not make you right either.

Can you tell me when I said or implied, “when I use disinformation against you it means I’m right”? I think you are very confused in both thought and language at this point. You’re relying on quips and phrases that simply do not apply.