Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:c8Kdndj6-Kckkb7VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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****.
>>
>
> I provided ample evidence.
You provided *ZERO* evidence of the UN giving evidence of a "feeling"
that Israel does not have the right to defend itself.
You lied. You're still lying. Neither Annan nor the UN ever said any
such thing. *EVERYTHING* you say must be considered a lie, since you
started out with such a big one and haven't backed off from 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.
>> 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.
>
> No you lying antisemite,
empty invective
> he didn't say Israel should defend itself,
He didn't say Israel *shouldn't* defend itself, you ****ing lying
Zio-Nazi ****bag.
> he blamed Israel for fighting back against wanton terrorism
No, ****ing lying Zio-Nazi ****bag, he did not "blame" Israel for
fighting back against "wanton" terrorism. He condemned Israel for
launching an all-out war against Lebanon. His condemnation was correct.
The entire civilized world, apart from the AIPAC-controlled U.S.,
condemned the attack.
>>> 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.
>
> Canoza the foreign born
No.
Israel is a rogue terrorist state.
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Go back to where you came from antisemite.
**** off, lying Zio-Nazi ****s***. I *am* where I came from.
Get your stinking disloyal Zio-Nazi ass the **** *OUT* of here.
>>>>> [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.
>
> Translation:
No translation necessary. You lied, full stop. Zio-Nazi = pathological
liar.
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> No,
Yes. I'm describing *YOU*, you filthy lying Zio-Nazi traitor. Shut
your ****ing s*** traitorous mouth and get the **** out of here.
|
