Nope, but you should.You had to quit drinking didn't you?
For what? Catching you in a monumental hypocrisy? That's easy, you make it easy, because your argument is flawed, and your evidence weak.what's your excuse?
And I haven't said he has.I respect Justice Goldstone. IMO, he has demonstrated the highest level integrity and honesty during his career which includes his days as a justice in South Africa dismantling Apartheid and later during the war crimes investigations in Yugoslavia. Some people here have recently become fans of Justice Goldstone, because they believe he has retracted his report and absolved Israel of all war crimes and crimes against humanity. The fact is, Goldstone has not done any of these things.
True, but now he sees just how out of touch it was. Do you?Judge Richard Goldstone admits parts of the report were flawed because of a lack of Israeli cooperation. He more or less said the same thing when he released the report.
It certainly does. If I remember correctly, you challenged me to read it and report page and paragraph, where I found errors, and show my proof that they were errors.Most of the report remains valid and much of the reaction to his oped ignores the substance of both the Goldstone Report (officially, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict)and Goldstone's reappraisal. The latter certainly raises questions about the accuracy of parts of the report.
I agree. He states clearly that Israel is addressing the allegations. Is he lying?But it does not go nearly as far as many Israeli supporters claim that Goldstone "retracted his allegations that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Operation Cast Lead." Human rights groups call that an overly generous reading of Goldstone's essay, and say that many of the report's central allegations still stand.
Why should we be held to a higher standard then you?I suggest to many of Justice Goldstone's new found supporters that they read both his oped and his report. Hopefully they will get their own opinion based directly on Goldstone's words and not given an opinion based on what others say Goldstone said:
Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I believe it does.But the U.N. hates joos.
You don't believe in God, so I don't think he'll be helping you or your red herring posts.God help the barbarians.
You don't believe in God, so I don't think he'll be helping you or your red herring posts.
I can only go by what you say here beave. You've poked Christians enough and stated your belief that God is a fraud enough, that only someone as daft as yourself or Mhz could possibly deny it.I do believe in God. Who the **** are you to tell me what I believe in?
Is that why you're quiet these days? Busy?Don't worry Bear there's lot's of Demonic Israeleeeeeeeee PR work these days eh.![]()
earth_as_one;1405153 I suggest to many of Justice Goldstone's new found supporters that they read both his oped and his report. Hopefully they will get their own opinion based directly on Goldstone's words and not given an opinion based on what others say Goldstone said: Oped [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html said:Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes - The Washington Post[/url]
Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
How about the articles everybody signed, are they flawed also, from what I've read they seem to offer some basic protection in exchange for not forming a mob and killing everybody considered to be 'in charge'. Following those specific items seems to be hit or miss at the best of time, miss being the usual mark hit.The UN HRC is slanted & biased beyond belief - but you find the body to be credible - I find the body to be rot thru to the core.
Still throwing out red herrings eh.How about the articles everybody signed, are they flawed also, from what I've read they seem to offer some basic protection in exchange for not forming a mob and killing everybody considered to be 'in charge'. Following those specific items seems to be hit or miss at the best of time, miss being the usual mark hit.
How good is an organization that cannot enforce it's own rules. One nation can say no and all the 100 yes votes mean ****, and you wonder why it doesn't work. It is that way because the papers were a piece of fiction from the st6art. If they were instructions, they were meant to instructions to do the opposite of what they said. If a liar says, "See you on Thursday." then Thursday is going to be an 'open day'.
How about the articles everybody signed, are they flawed also, from what I've read they seem to offer some basic protection in exchange for not forming a mob and killing everybody considered to be 'in charge'. Following those specific items seems to be hit or miss at the best of time, miss being the usual mark hit.
How good is an organization that cannot enforce it's own rules. One nation can say no and all the 100 yes votes mean ****, and you wonder why it doesn't work. It is that way because the papers were a piece of fiction from the st6art. If they were instructions, they were meant to instructions to do the opposite of what they said. If a liar says, "See you on Thursday." then Thursday is going to be an 'open day'.
Not my fault you keep trying to twist the conversation. Why don't you just answer Goobers questions.Herring??? Is that your word of the day thing? You use it enough that people are going to think you stutter.
The 3 links were there, counting should be done by the one who wants the answer, you would just check my answer anyway, and more countries are mentioned than you listed, their suffering should not go unmentioned.Not my fault you keep trying to twist the conversation. Why don't you just answer Goobers questions.
Again you miss the point.The 3 links were there, counting should be done by the one who wants the answer, you would just check my answer anyway, and more countries are mentioned than you listed, their suffering should not go unmentioned.
I would think if you prepared for old age it would not end up smacking you in the face. That would be for the ones that prepare for retirement by saving or collecting or planning retirement activities just to find out retirement for them doesn't all for the things they thought would be there fore them. Those are the ones that old age hits in the face.You are running from facts - But like old age, reality does have a habit of slamming you right in the face, that is if you are smart enough to realize it, the slap of reality can be gradual as you dip into the truth. That slap has in your case not arrived yet.It may in the future.
The points as rebuttal to my questions are not relevant.
I would think if you prepared for old age it would not end up smacking you in the face. That would be for the ones that prepare for retirement by saving or collecting or planning retirement activities just to find out retirement for them doesn't all for the things they thought would be there fore them. Those are the ones that old age hits in the face.
Many people travel thru life with the attitude of working so hard to provide, they miss the reality of what they have. Their family. Their friends -I would think if you prepared for old age it would not end up smacking you in the face. That would be for the ones that prepare for retirement by saving or collecting or planning retirement activities just to find out retirement for them doesn't all for the things they thought would be there fore them. Those are the ones that old age hits in the face.
My reference was an aquaintance from work who was planning to retire and mess around in his shop, really nice one. The he started cutting off fingertips without knowing it right off the bat. He is now planning to sit on a beach a long ways south of here, at least he could go with the flow.