> Ad hominem attack. ok, your point, that accusation does not add much to the argument, and it does not negate the facts I presented? I'm questioning the motiv

> Ad hominem attack. ok, your point, that accusation does not add much to the argument, and it does not negate the facts I presented? I'm questioning the motive behind the report. and questioning the integrity of amnesty international with supporting facts. it's like someone questioning a propaganda by nazi germany, as it promotes hitler agenda. would you accuse that someone with "Ad hominem attack" > And just because it's propaganda, doesn't mean it isn't news based on facts. what facts? this argument is pointless, hearsay is not fact, and hearsay is not admissible in court, that's a fact; we are talking about people who behead other people and eat their liver, do you think it would be too hard for them to make up some stuff and lie. unless they show verifiable facts about dates, locations, victim names, etc.. you can only assume it's fabricated lies. you should watch a canadian journalist who went to syria and listened to eye witnesses [1], that's a fact, not a report of anonymous people claiming stuff [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=810s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=810s