"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:TY2dncEVMYAPGr_VnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
It's the truth. But even when the evidence rubbed in your face you can't
see it.
>
>
> > 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.
Actually, liar, the claim that Israel defending itself against unending
terrorist attacks should be constrained by Annan's sense of
"pro****tionality" is what is criminal.
What is criminal is the sup****t idiots like you give to Hamas and
Hezbollah
when you see Israel defending itself against such attacks as the problem,
rather than the attacks themselves.
>
>
> >>>>> 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.
Yes, you are a dimwit AND 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.
Translation: "I can't refute your evidence proving the UN's bias against
Israel defending itself so I'll make it go away."
I accept your concession.
>
> >>> 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.
Now you're projecting. You have been caught in repeated lies and have the
gall to accuse others of adopting your tactics.
I have no need to. The facts are on my side.
>
>
> >>>>> 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*.
No, but you are illiterate. Why do you lie? Are you so obsessed with
your
hatred for the Jewish state?
>
>
> >>> 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.
Translation: "Yes, Mr. Kimmel. I cannot refute your facts."
|
