"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:yI-dnVF27KBDabzVnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > "grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:8tGdnfCoi7FwIbzVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Straw man argument. Who has said the response should be
pro****tional?
> >
> > Start with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
>
> *YOU* give us a verifiable citation, liar.
You're the liar -- and uninformed idiot.
Israel's offensive into Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, in response to the
abductions of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah and one by Hamas militants,
raises a number of difficult legal questions. Among them: Did the Israeli
response violate the principle of pro****tionality? UN Secretary General
Kofi
Annan has accused Israel of "dispro****tionate use of force" in its air
strikes aimed at infrastructure including bridges and power stations,
attacks which cut off clean water and electricity to Palestinian
civilians.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11115/israel_and_the_doctrine_of_pro****tionality.html
>
>
> >
> >>> It is the only country in the world that the UN feels is
> >>> not entitled to defend itself from ongoing war and terrorist
attacks.
> >>>
> >> Another straw man argument. BTW, one country's defense will be
viewed
by
> >> others as belligerence. The Iraq war is an excellent example.
> >
> > Not a straw man at all.
>
> Yes, it is a straw man. "The UN" has never said, nor given any evidence
> of a "feeling", that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. You
> fabricated the charge out of thin air.
You are a dimwit. Why are you participating in this discussion when it's
clear you know nothing about the subject?
New York, 28 April 2008 - Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for
the
Secretary-General on the Latest Violence in the Gaza Strip
The Secretary-General condemns the loss of civilian life earlier today in
Gaza, including the tragic deaths of a mother and four of her children.
The
Secretary-General calls upon Israel to exercise maximum care and
restraint,
and reminds the Israel Defense Forces of its responsibilities to protect
civilians under international humanitarian law during its military
operations.
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=3123
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 17 -- The U.N. General Assembly voted 156 to 7 on
Friday to condemn Israel for "indiscriminate and dispro****tionate use of
force" in its military offensive in Gaza, during an emergency session that
provided scores of U.N. members with a familiar platform to excoriate the
Jewish state's policies in the region. Six countries abstained.
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701769.html
>
> > Israel *is* under attack by terrorist groups
> > publicly vowing to destroy Israel. The only people who think Israel
is
> > "belligerant" for daring to fight back are those who already sup****t
the
> > Hamas "destroy Israel" agenda.
>
> No, that's another straw man - a form of lying.
No, as demonstrated, it is incontrovertible facts.
>
>
> >>> You seemed to have missed the point in thinking the example was an
> > excuse
> >>> for the US to go to war for Israel, which -- hysterics and
hatemongers
> > to
> >>> the contrary notwithstanding -- it has never done.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You missed the point in that Clinton stated the U.S. will obliterate
Iran
> >> if Iran attacks Israel which is "an excuse for the US to go to war
for
> >> Israel."
> >
> >
> > Actually, you're wrong yet again.
>
> No, he isn't.
Yes, he is. Hillary Clinton was responding to a particularly scenario,
not
expressing a desire to go to war for Israel, something the US has NEVER
done.
>
>
> > Whatever her unfortunate phrasing, she
> > was presented with a scenario where Iran launched a *nuclear* missile
at
> > Israel.
> >
> > That's not a mere "attack." And it's not an "excuse for the US to go
to
war
> > for Israel." It's realizing that at that stage Iran has become a
cancer
> > that must be cut out because it endangers the entire civilized world.
>
> No, that's merely how you want to spin it.
To the contrary, you're spinning frantically, but you don't have the
slightest notion what you're talking about.
|
