Palestinian Terrorist Again Using Children as Shields.
- Thread starter Sassylassie
- Start date
You are a childish lil man aren't you, you can no longer support your aguement, so you resort to this. I retract all the compliments I've paid to you. You are a child.
Hey --- no personal attacks, OK.
I told you previously, I do not know why the print comes out so large except for the "owned" part. That is just the way the words are printing through no fault of my own.
As for my post not constituting proof, it was your link that I was quoting there. So are you saying that it is good enough for you to use as proof but not good enough for me to use it for the same reason???? Just because it proves my point now you are denouncing it??????
Hey --- no personal attacks, OK.
I told you previously, I do not know why the print comes out so large except for the "owned" part. That is just the way the words are printing through no fault of my own.
As for my post not constituting proof, it was your link that I was quoting there. So are you saying that it is good enough for you to use as proof but not good enough for me to use it for the same reason???? Just because it proves my point now you are denouncing it??????
HUH?
I think not gopher, you interjected your words in to that piece by the HRW, they have found that the Hezbollah has, is pretty clear cut to the whole world, except you. So does that by your definition, mean the whole world is against you and the Hezbollah?
BTW, I don't buy for a minute, that that was an accident, beyond your control.
I don't buy for a minute, that that was an accident, beyond your control.
What? I'm not a Republican!
As for HRW read it again as you do not fully understand what it says.
What? I'm not a Republican!
As for HRW read it again as you do not fully understand what it says.
Merci buckets. I'm not looking for the link to discredit btw, I was serious about the footnotes etc.
Awww, there were none. It must be Amensty International that quotes their sources and lists their references.
You may send a letter to the writer of that article for further clarification. This way she can distinguish between "documented" IDF violations and unconfirmed reports against Hezbollah.
Just in case however, this should settle the issue:
[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]"Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. "[/SIZE][/FONT]
Just in case however, this should settle the issue:
[FONT=geneva,arial][SIZE=-1]"Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. "[/SIZE][/FONT]
I wasn't looking for further clarification. Often times, when articles of this nature are written by employees of organizations such as this, print a bit of detail at the end of their aticles/reports which I actuallly find more interesting than the article/report itself. It's as simple as that.
I find it culturally offensive to say you "own" me.
"Owned", not own. Look again. It's a figure of speech showing that you have lost an argument.
next ...
"Owned", not own. Look again. It's a figure of speech showing that you have lost an argument.
next ...
I wasn't looking for further clarification.
No footnotes proves a point I tried to make to Bear but he refused to consider: HRW did NOT reach any conclusion that Hezbollah was in violation and that is why its oversight division did not put some form of final report. They have had three months in which to do so. The fact that it has taken this long and no further evidence has been gathered tells me it will reach no conclusion that such violations took place.
Interestingly, it came to an immediate conclusion that the IDF was in violation.
next ...
Next?
I'm going to find a more mature person to converse with, then I'll wait while you finish growing up. You have read the HRW report the way you want it to be. Until you face the facts that news agencies, which you will only accept if it supports your agenda, and the HRW have found that the Hezbollah have used civilians. You don't have to admit it, even if you did, you would be lying. You have not won, you have not proved anything other then your inablity to be objective and mature. Have fun
you have not proved anything other then your inablity to be objective and mature. Have fun
Yeah right; and thanks for the fun.
... next ...
Yeah right; and thanks for the fun.
... next ...
The UN isn't any more specific in the matter, either.
The UN has been woefully deficient in stopping the IDF's violations. But what can you expect from a group virtually controlled by the White House? I have lost my respect for that organization but that's for another thread.
The UN has been woefully deficient in stopping the IDF's violations. But what can you expect from a group virtually controlled by the White House? I have lost my respect for that organization but that's for another thread.
They did according to HRW's definition of human sheilds. I don't know about the Geneva Convention though.
Are you agreeing with my assertion that the HRW has found that the Hezbollah has used civilians as shields?
If so, perhaps you could explain that to the goopher.
Controlled by the interests of it's most influential members. Everyone has a vested interest in keeping the ME somewhat peaceful, not just the US.
The article golpher posted states they did, although they didn't actually reference the Geneva convention with respect to the definition of a human sheild and what circumstances would justify using that term.
I should clairfy, they didn't actually use the term 'human sheild', in stead they used the definition to describe certain actions and scenarios.