M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) you're the one who used his opinion to discredit amnesty. do you agree with him or not? His opinion on amnesty, given that he is a hard left anti israeli darling and a former dericter of AI, is pristine. Edited July 9, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 His opinion on amnesty, given that he is a hard left anti israeli darling and a former dericter of AI, is pristine. but he also agrees that israel has committed war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 but he also agrees that israel has committed war crimes. And he's a goof. Which explains was he is loved so much be the fruitbars our there. But as a former director of AI, he knows AI is worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 And he's a goof. Which explains was he is loved so much be the fruitbars our there. you quoted him to try to help your argument. does that make you a part time goof and fruitbar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 you quoted him to try to help your argument. does that make you a part time goof and fruitbar? If I start using your quotes to help my argument, I would be a full on full time idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) you quoted him to try to help your argument. does that make you a part time goof and fruitbar? If someone is biased in a given direction, then when he makes statements that are aligned with that bias, they can be discounted, but when he makes statements that are critical of institutions with the same bias, there is a potential for legitimacy. This is the very same reason you latch onto any available Israeli sources for your criticisms of Israel. Edited July 9, 2009 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 If someone is biased in a given direction, then when he makes statements that are aligned with that bias, they can be discounted, but when he makes statements that are critical of institutions with the same bias, there is a potential for legitimacy. This is the very same reason you latch onto any available Israeli sources for your criticisms of Israel. i'm latching onto 3 human rights organizations' reports and to UN resolutions. dancer fucked up. he desperately looked for something to try to discredit amnesty and didn't check to see who it was that he was quoting. the guy he quoted is an international law professor who has on numerous times accused israel of committing war crimes. it just happens that dancer is trying to discredit amnesty for their report on israel's war crimes. bonam, you've shown flashes of honesty in these discussions. you'd really be hurting your credibility by trying to stand up for dancer's big booboo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 you'd really be hurting your credibility by trying to stand up for dancer's big booboo. My credibility, in your eyes, is of little consequence to me. You have a closed, predetermined mindset that has already judged Israel many years ago. You are now on a quest to vilify it as much as possible. The purpose of these discussions is not to convince you of anything, as that is basically impossible, but rather to inform other readers, who minds may be more open. bonam, you've shown flashes of honesty in these discussions. I am and have always been fully honest in my posts. On those occasions where I have made factual errors, I have freely and promptly admitted them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 My credibility, in your eyes, is of little consequence to me. You have a closed, predetermined mindset that has already judged Israel many years ago. You are now on a quest to vilify it as much as possible. The purpose of these discussions is not to convince you of anything, as that is basically impossible, but rather to inform other readers, who minds may be more open. I am and have always been fully honest in my posts. On those occasions where I have made factual errors, I have freely and promptly admitted them. okay. so getting back to your previous comments about "latching on.." as mentioned, at the moment, i am pointing out 3 reports by the red cross, HRW and amnesty who all point to israel committing war crimes. i've also pointed out israel's violations of UN resolutions. if you want latching on? just look at dancer's desperate post to try to discredit one of the organizations where he quotes an opinion about amnesty from someone who actually agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report, that israel commits war crimes. lets be honest about the situation, shall we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 if you want latching on? just look at dancer's desperate post to try to discredit one of the organizations where he quotes an opinion about amnesty from someone who actually agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report, that israel commits war crimes.lets be honest about the situation, shall we? Yes lets....actually I am discrediting =you and your bone stupid strawman saying I would poo poo AI and South African apartheid....cause that facts are...while they got attntion for political prisoners, they never condemned apartheid. Now if you want to talk stupid, lets talk aboput how a report constututes guilt in your eyes...with a court trial or a defense....not only is that stupid, it betrays your feeble minded fascist stance on the issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yes lets....actually I am discrediting =you and your bone stupid strawman saying I would poo poo AI and South African apartheid....cause that facts are...while they got attntion for political prisoners, they never condemned apartheid. Now if you want to talk stupid, lets talk aboput how a report constututes guilt in your eyes...with a court trial or a defense....not only is that stupid, it betrays your feeble minded fascist stance on the issues. you're angry and babbling (and your fat fingers seem to be getting in the way) because you screwed up and tried to use someone's opinion who actually agrees with amnesty's conclusion that israel has committed war crimes. oh and the chairman of the anti-apartheid committee kind of likes amnesty international. but who cares about him when you have found an opinion from a guy who you don't agree with at all. lols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 you're angry and babbling (and your fat fingers seem to be getting in the way) because you screwed up and tried to use someone's opinion who actually agrees with amnesty's conclusion that israel has committed war crimes. Two thoughts at once are more than you can handle eh? Actually amnesty agrees with the whackjob, the whackjob thinks amnesty is a crook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Two thoughts at once are more than you can handle eh?Actually amnesty agrees with the whackjob, the whackjob thinks amnesty is a crook. this has become a pattern. you screw up. i call you on it. you go into denial mode. maybe another break from this forum is in order or maybe your problem is permanent. so after all of this, the conclusion still stands: 3 reputable human rights organizations, amnesty, the red cross and HRW and "soon to be" UNHRC report led by richard goldstone (another self-hating jew who was the chief UN prosecutor in rwanda and yugo) who have and will report that israel has violated international law and has committed war crimes. i guess these days, it's really difficult being a war crimes apologist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 3 reputable human rights organizations, amnesty, the red cross and HRW and "soon to be" UNHRC report led by richard goldstone (another self-hating jew who was the chief UN prosecutor in rwanda and yugo) who have and will report that israel has violated international law and has committed war crimes. Reputable? Here's how law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge: The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime." In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities. As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report: During the four week war Hezbollah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties. The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded. AI has not issued a report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Reputable? In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities. Well of course. The ultimate goal of the 3 in regards to Israel isllimiting her ability to defend her self: 1) through the misapllication of law and 2) through the manipulation of public opinion. I would be surprise if here was one high ranking officer (who studies the GC) who didn't agree with the above article. Dubs opinion is worthless on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Well of course. The ultimate goal of the 3 in regards to Israel isllimiting her ability to defend her self: 1) through the misapllication of law and 2) through the manipulation of public opinion.I would be surprise if here was one high ranking officer (who studies the GC) who didn't agree with the above article. Dubs opinion is worthless on the subject. it's good that you've decided to move along from your embarrassing display of trying to defend using an opinion from a person who agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report to say that amnesty's report is useless. the GC are a set of laws for humanitarian concerns which we are all a signatory to. who is better at interpreting this law than expert human rights organizations who have been doing this for decades? not just amnesty international, but also international red cross, HRW and UN Human Rights Council. maybe you want to tell others that a military officer is better at interpreting it than these guys, but majority of the world knows better. Edited July 10, 2009 by dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Reputable? In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities. i'll remind you why you're a biased idiot who will try to go to any length to share misinformation: #1 - you've posted an article from 2006 and it has nothing to do with gaza #2 - you've posted an article by OJ simpons' ex lawyer, alan dershowitz. #3 - there are other international rights organizations who have come out with reports showing that israel has committed war crimes. you fail again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 it's good that you've decided to move along from your embarrassing display of trying to defend using an opinion from a person who agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report to say that amnesty's report is useless. You are confused again. I didn't say the report was useless. I said AI was a crook. With so many lies I guess you have a hard time keeping your falsehoods in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 i'll remind you why I am a biased idiot who will try to go to any length to share misinformationn such as an AI report I fixed you're post to better reflect reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 you've posted an article from 2006 and it has nothing to do with gaza It has everything to do with the (in)credibility of AI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 You are confused again. I didn't say the report was useless. I said AI was a crook. With so many lies I guess you have a hard time keeping your falsehoods in line. lols. yes. AI is a crook. that is your response to AI's report and the red cross' report and HRW report and UN's probe into the gaza attack. like i said before, these are bad time for war crimes apologists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 It has everything to do with the (in)credibility of AI. it's an opinion piece from 2006 vs a report put out by AI for a 2008/9 incident. you fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 it's an opinion piece from 2006 vs a report put out by AI for a 2008/9 incident.you fail. Seems that it is the same biased organization they were then. Unless you have some evidence they have changed their ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Seems that it is the same biased organization they were then. Unless you have some evidence they have changed their ways. the evidence is in the 127 page report where they've gone over not only israel's war crimes but also hamas'. i see that you have yet to have found any old links and opinion pieces trying to use as your proof that the red cross and HRW's reports are also 'bogus'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 So in otherwords no, AI is just as biases and flawed as ever. 127 pages of biased flawed opinion. A good editor could get it down to one line. The Jews cintinue to thwart their destruction. Try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.