Now you're trying to play with words and moving goal posts..That's pure bullshyte and you bloody well know it and it won't fool anyone, much less an old dog like me..:roll:
Turkey to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza in international court
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Now you're trying to play with words and moving goal posts..That's pure bullshyte and you bloody well know it and it won't fool anyone, much less an old dog like me..:roll:
You spelled incorrectly wrong.
I love the demonization Israel in that hot linking. Well done.
Here the appropriate one...
With an unedited address, because I'm not trying to demonize an entire country...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_cold_blood
And that proves what? f
that you dance around an issue never coming forward on anything and always leave yourself a door open to back out for deniability...like any rotten cowardly politician would do....?
Speaking of moving goal posts
Where in either definition of cold blood is a reference to just cause?
What, are you planning on moving them again?
Your ironic moving of goal posts aside. Since "cold blood" isn't what you said...
It's the common usage/meaning of the term.
Call your local Police detachment and ask them.
"In cold blood" refers to murder, generally of an innocent, unarmed party.
It is never applied to a just killing of a combatant.
You can pretend it common usage means butterflies or whatever you want. You're see through, while you demonize Israel and fain impartial objectivity.
You should be.
So you say.
You and cubby have the same pathetic habit, when you get proven wrong or exposed for what you really are.
Claim it didn't happen, or ignore it altogether.
You keep supporting neo Nazi terrorist regimes. Ignoring documented history. Believing anything some Palestinian says off the cuff. Disbelieve anything an Israeli says, no matter what evidence backs it up. You'll continue to demonize Israel, and you'll continue to say I didn't prove anything. When clearly, I have, at every challenge. While I've asked you to prove your claims of me, time and time again. You've never done so.
Considering how unethical you were recently proven to be. Anything you say, without concrete evidence, is worthless.
Last edited:
Just one thing concerning Gaza not having a Port that can handle aid ships.
Gaza port readies for flotilla - JPost - Middle East
Gaza port readies for flotilla - JPost - Middle East
Guess they should have left their steel bars at home.....
Israel could LEGALLY have torpedoed the ship.
My humblest apologies, as we all know, Hamas is an upstanding global community member, incapable of deceit.
So I must stand corrected.
I have seen this tactic used many times by this one ....when running out of arguments or when you feel you are starting to loose...put an obvious BS line in a paragraph somewhere and make sure your oponent spots it then the argument shifts to that line and not the main argument and you don't have to concede the main argument...Classic post moving....lawyers do it all the time...very frustrating but sometimes funny as hell....
Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube
Another tactic that is frustrating as hell is someone that asks a question after a post that has nothing to do with the subject at hand......Just to Blow smoke
Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube
Another tactic that is frustrating as hell is someone that asks a question after a post that has nothing to do with the subject at hand......Just to Blow smoke
You have to look at what Israel is doing if you're going to understand Hamas reactions . To completely ignore Israel and focus on Hamas doesn't make any sense and disingenuous.
It is quite simple really.
No matter who started it, or who is at fault, there are hostilities between Gaza and Israel. Therefore, Israel has every right to impose and enforce a naval blockade.
That is the law.
What part of "unreasonable and excessive force" are you having a hard time understanding?
I for one am not having a hard time understanding that flawed opinion, from a group with a proven bias.
What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?
I understand unreasonable and excessive force.
I taught armed guards how to avoid unreasonable and excessive force.
In Canadian law, lethal force can ONLY be used if you or another person are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm.
The Islamist idiots seeking martyrdom on the Mavi definitely were attempting to cause the IDF troopers "death or grievous bodily harm"
Therefore, lethal force, even under mild Canadian rules, was absolutely called for, was completely justified......
And the UN Report is full of it, IMHO merely attempting to "balance" their finding that the Gaza blockade was legal.
Just let me add that if any of my trainees had asked me what to do in such a stuation, my answer would have been "Start shooting.......stop when there is no one else wielding a weapon.......that isn't wearing a uniform"
Last edited:
That's what happens when one can't argue the legitimacy of the blockade......they try to nit pick little points here and there, just so they don't have to concede.
That blockade was legal Period.
That blockade was legal Period.