Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "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.
It isn't the truth; it's complete bull****. That's why you can't give
any evidence to sup****t the claim.
Merely repeating your bull**** claim will not transform it to the truth.
It's bull****.
>>> 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.
No, lying Zio-Nazi, Annan didn't say that Israel shouldn't defend
itself. What Israel does in launching wanton, indiscriminate attacks
against Lebanon and Gaza is not self-defense. That's the whole issue.
> What is criminal is the sup****t idiots like you give to Hamas and
Hezbollah
No sup****t for Hamas or Hezbollah given, liar. Opposition to Israeli
aggression - state terrorism - does not equate to sup****t for Hamas and
Hezbollah.
Stop lying, kimmie.
>>>>>>> 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,
No. You are a liar - a lying Zio-Nazi fanatic. You're a disloyal
"American". Get your Zio-Nazi ass to Israel if you want to promote its
interests.
>>> [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:
No translation necessary. You lied, full stop.
>>>>> 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.
Now I'm describing you, you filthy lying Zio-Nazi.
>>>>>>> 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
Yes, you're lying.
>>>>> 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:
No translation needed. You lied.
|
