Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "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
Nope. You lied. You said that the UN has a "feeling" that Israel has
no right to defend itself. That's a lie.
> 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
Exactly right. Israel's response was grotesquely dispro****tionate;
criminally so.
Nonetheless, liar, that doesn't do anything to sup****t your claim that
the UN harbors a "feeling" that Israel has no right to defend itself.
Its grotesquely dispro****tionate response was in no way defensive.
>>>>> 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.
No. But you are a liar.
> [snip BULL**** that does not, in any way, sup****t your false claim about
> the UN harboring a "feeling" that Israel has no right to defend itself]
You lied.
>>> 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.
No, it's a lie, kimmie. It is not a fact at all. It's a false
bifurcation. *MOST* people who believe Israel responded immorally and
illegally in their dispro****tionate response harbor no such sup****t for
Hamas.
You lie every time you post. You're a chronic liar.
>>>>> 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.
No, he isn't. You're lying *again*.
>>> 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,
No, kimmie.
|
