Is this evidence of some more hysterical hand wringing from you?
Ad hom again: and I don't think you know what that phrase means.
You are a hypocrite because you feel no qualms about personally attacking others while complaining about attacks upon yourself.
I give what's given to me. Funny that way, I guess. Actually, that's not true: I don't engage in
unsubstantiated attacks and name-calling, as you do.
Actually, no it does not.
So you admit that the journalists who were on that ship, impartial journalists only there to cover a story, may have captured the IDF in an unsavoury light because of the way the IDF acted and stormed those ships?
No: I say that there is the
possibility of the above. However, the personal accounts (as by Ms. Lee, I think her name was) coupled with the videos support the Israel version of events, insofar as that goes.
Guilt and premeditation?
Okay. You keep harping on and on about this.
The facts, as they are, had the IDF shadowing that flotilla for hours prior to their storming it. The ships were in international waters. I would imagine that if the activists were intent on causing harm, and it was premeditated, they would have gone down to the kitchens to arm themselves better than with poles that hold up the railing from the deck.
Again:
how? They weren't carrying guns, remember? By "gone down to the kitchens" I assume you mean knives: which they did use. So again, your facts support the interpretation you don't want.
Really?
Now, you want to talk about anti-Israeli singing and show premeditation? The evidence, as is plainly evident in their having to resort to using support poles for the deck railing and plastic chairs
Yes, the "iron-ish sticks" of legend. Tell me, do you think an "iron-ish stick" is a useful weapon? Basically a big metal club. Do you think you could kill someone with it?
So where you go paintballing, the paintballs themselves have shards of glass embedded in them? You paintball with the IDF for fun?
Non sequitur. Not the point and you know it.
Oh really? So tell me, what "care and intent" and their premeditation (since you know, they admitted to planning their actions in storming that flotilla for weeks) do you see when they have pieces of glass embedded in the paintballs they use?
Riot control weapon. But several of you on the "other side" been implying that the Israelis came to kill. Did they think the paintball guns were lethal weapons? Why didn't they bring machineguns and
real grenades? You see, this is what I don't get or believe about you: the argument was about whether the kind of arms the Israelis were packing were mostly lethal (they weren't), not whether they were
nasty. They
are nasty: but not lethal. This should be kind of obvious to you, and yet it isn't. So, like Tiassa says, either you're actually ignorant of this distinction or you're faking.
Genuine is genuine, and you're not.
Also, on that note, why don't we have a single image of the activists with any paint on them? What we have are dozens of people injured having been shot. Now, either their paintballs had very little paint and more glass to cause damage or they fired very few and switched to live rounds straight away, which is what the passengers on those ships have claimed.
Of that, we cannot say. Perhaps the rounds were loaded with pepper, as EF has said. Perhaps there was no paint and only the glass. But if you expect me to believe you at this point, you'd have to try very hard.
So tell me, are you going to use the "care and intent" line with me about the IDF?
Oh, absolutely (see above): you claim they were there for a slaughter, but they clearly weren't. Thus, it's a very salient point.
And you do yourself a disservice in finding what was sung at a hate rally more important than what actually happened on that boat.
Premeditation, councillor. We've been through this.
You do yourself a disservice when you attempt to justify shooting people in the head and executing them while harping on and on about the "rally".
Interesting: where have I
justified shooting people in the head?
Really? So when you question my abilities as a lawyer, when you question my intelligence by calling me stupid, dumb and not to mention my ability to read and comprehend, you're doing what exactly?
Using Sam's model of dissertation?
Bells, I question you because it seems incredible that you don't follow my points and distinctions despite purportedly being a trained argumenter. It is a disservice to the argument. ("Stupid" and "dumb" are redundant, anyway.) My points are at least arguable: but your recourse has often been to simply blanket those who don't agree with you on this issue "racist" and leave it at that; this is patently false. I think you'll find my handling of you a lot more equanimous than most posters around here.
How about when you kept making fun of my attempted rape? What disservice does that do to me or others?
You also fundamentally misunderstand that: first, I've already apologized for it, and now you use this solely as a means to attack me. Second: the point of the joke was the way in which you
won. It was, in fact, triumphal, and a stirring scorn on your attacker. But you may take this as you will.
as if trying to goad me into doing something you know I would never stoop to
Well, as I said, you've stooped to a lot else thus far. I merely wanted to give you the chance to express yourself.
I also do not go onto other websites and stab you in the back.
Yes: the poor untouchable
moderator must have felt incredibly betrayed to discover that evil Geoff had been griping about him on someone else's site, after she'd been blasting him with the same nonsense as above. How that must have hurt her, being complained about while holding a near-absolute upper hand.
Very fair and balanced. I can see you have your "dignity hat" on.
