Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(17-11-2013 01:15 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 09:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is, in fact, the basis for smoke grenades....

[Image: 800px-Ayman2.jpg]

Jeez, Chas. Look at what this does to people! You're seriously defending this, and trying to refute I and I's condemnation of this? Do you have any sense of morality or compassion? How would you like it if that was you in the photo, and I and I came to your defense, arguing how cruel it was to inflict such suffering on you, and condemning the people who did this to you. And then I came along, arguing that I and I was full of shit and that WP isn't all that bad, and it has legitimate uses, so we can't condemn whoever did that to you. Would you like that if _YOU_ were the victim?

I guess the idea of putting yourself in other people's shoes and showing empathy is just so foreign to you.

At what point did I defend anything but facts? Have I said anything about the use of WP devices? No. Have I promoted their use? No.

You keep reading what you want to in people's responses; it is really annoying.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-11-2013, 02:42 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(17-11-2013 02:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  At what point did I defend anything but facts? Have I said anything about the use of WP devices? No. Have I promoted their use? No.

You keep reading what you want to in people's responses; it is really annoying.

Pointing out that further restriction on the use of chemical weapons, without a change in definitions of such, would have no effect on the use of white phosphorus, which is not currently classified as a chemical weapon...

No, that's clearly advocating its use.

Rolleyes

And obviously it means you don't care about other people. Obviously.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-11-2013, 10:17 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(17-11-2013 02:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  At what point did I defend anything but facts? Have I said anything about the use of WP devices? No. Have I promoted their use? No.

So predictable, Chas. I and I accurately predicted exactly how you would respond:

(15-11-2013 08:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 07:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.

According to U.S. intelligence white phosphorous is labeled a chemical weapon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...16523.html

Chas makes a claim, completely false, I show evidence of the U.S. itself classifying white phosphorous as a chemical weapon.

Watch kids, as chas back tracks, plays semantics and does that beautiful back pedal dance he does.

Dance boy dance.

So, the bottom line is you are NOT defending facts. You are ignoring them to defend the use of chemical weapons. I pointed out in post #12 that the Geneva conventions do not list what chemicals are allowed vs. banned, but rather bans the use of ANY and ALL chemicals as weapons. I also included a direct quote from the UN body on this confirming that the use of WP as a weapon IS ILLEGAL and banned under international law. Did you dispute this? Did you even acknowledge this? Did you retract your blatant lie that “White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.”? Nope. Bury your head and keep defending war crimes.

(17-11-2013 02:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  white phosphorus, which is not currently classified as a chemical weapon...

Big surprise. The two twins play the same game. Cjlr, like Chas, doesn't dispute the verbatim text from the laws and quotes from the UN we have provided confirming WP IS, like all chemicals, banned when used as a weapon. Just ignore the facts, keep repeating the same lie hoping some day we'll stop refuting it, and keep defending the use of WP to burn people alive, insisting that Israel's not doing anything illegal when they torch innocent people with it.

(17-11-2013 02:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  that's clearly advocating its use. And obviously it means you don't care about other people. Obviously.

Finally two honest statements. YES, when I and I points out how horrible it was for Israel to use chemical weapons on innocent people and burn them alive, and you and Chas continue to insist that it wasn't illegal and Israel wasn't breaking any laws, ignoring all the facts, YES, that IS defending the use of this chemical weapon. And, YES, it is pretty obvious to me that you don't care that much about the people. The government could really do anything at all, genocide, mass torture, chemical weapons, anything really, and it seems you will just keep defending the government with total disregard for the suffering of the people.

The fact is that when I and I brought up the use of WP, you, Chas and Cjlr, did not take his side and condemn this sadistic and brutal act, rather you HAVE been defending it this whole time, insisting it wasn't illegal, which, even if it weren't wouldn't justify it, and is especially egregious since it obviously WAS illegal!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Did you retract your blatant lie that “White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.”? Nope.

I told myself I wouldn't bother taking another ride on your trollercoaster, friend, but here we are. If only you hadn't blatantly accused me of supporting and endorsing war crimes, it wouldn't be necessary.

Look, while we're on the subject of definitions, can I refresh you on one?

It's lying if you know it's wrong. Otherwise it's called just being wrong.

Do you know that Chas made his statement in willful error? Because if not, then, y'know; it wasn't lying. So there's that. It's kind of incredible, though; so astoundingly self-assured are you that when someone else disagrees, they are not just wrong but are necessarily lying! Fascinating.

How about another handy tidbit: white phosphorus is not defined as a chemical weapon in the Geneva Conventions. One might be forgiven, perhaps, for considering that the most pertinent definition, given that the very thread title is about the Geneva Conventions. White phosphorus is toxic, but that is not how it is weaponized. Let us consider: tungsten is toxic. Tungsten is used in armour-piercing munitions. It is not a chemical weapon. But it's toxic! How could that be? Well, referring to, er, the Geneva Conventions, we see that to be a chemical weapon it must be chemical toxicity which is weaponized. Tungsten's toxicity is not why it is used. Phosphorus's toxicity is not why it is used. It is used as an incendiary. The use of incendiaries is not banned. Their deliberate use against civilians is.

Do note that this is the exact same definition that you gave, when quoting the Geneva Conventions. Did you read it? Because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

But why should we let reality bother us? There's self-righteous condemnation to engage in, here! Calumny, away!

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Bury your head and keep defending war crimes.

Do you make many friends, this way?

I can't imagine you do.

But maybe there are people out there like being baselessly accused of supporting war crimes. Anything's possible.

PS: citation needed.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The two twins play the same game. Cjlr, like Chas, doesn't dispute the verbatim text from the laws and quotes from the UN we have provided confirming WP IS, like all chemicals, banned when used as a weapon. Just ignore the facts, keep repeating the same lie hoping some day we'll stop refuting it, and keep defending the use of WP to burn people alive, insisting that Israel's not doing anything illegal when they torch innocent people with it.

Hey, buddy. Hey. Look, I know you have problems with reading comprehension, but, there's also the part where I didn't do any of that.

And also the part where your own supplied definition stated explicitly that use of phosphorus was allowed if it was used as an incendiary and not for its chemical toxicity (see above).

I mean, I thought your trolltacularly insane reading of Chas's remark was a little off-base. I didn't realize that stating as such constituted defending war crimes. Well, shit. You learn something new every day.

No, let's review your, er, ahem, *logic*.

A says: chemical weapons are bad. White phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
(let us here note that two statements have been made; we shall call them X and Y respectively)
B says: white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.
(let us note that this constitutes disagreeing with statement Y above)
A says: HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT WAR CRIMES RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
(let us note that this constitutes interpreting questioning of Y as complete disagreement with X; this is not sane, but it is a favoured pastime of yours)

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 02:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  that's clearly advocating its use. And obviously it means you don't care about other people. Obviously.

Finally two honest statements.

Sweet. Zombie. Jesus. I guess your sarcasm detector is broken?

I can't wait to see where you're going with this. Ought'a be good!

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  YES, when I and I points out how horrible it was for Israel to use chemical weapons on innocent people and burn them alive...

Hmm. Yes. I didn't dispute that.

Note that I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately; that's quite the claim. As with, y'know, any claim made by anyone ever, I'm afraid I'll require some substantiation before I accept it. This has, however, no bearing on anything else in your post.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and you and Chas continue to insist that it wasn't illegal

Nope. Didn't even say that.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and Israel wasn't breaking any laws, ignoring all the facts,

Nope. Didn't even say that.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  YES, that IS defending the use of this chemical weapon. And, YES, it is pretty obvious to me that you don't care that much about the people.

Nope. Your opinion, however strident, does not constitute reality. "It is obvious to me" does not determine what other people are actually thinking. I mean, if it seems someone has made such a statement, one course of action might be to ask them to clarify, before you start slinging around hysterical accusations. But, that makes it much harder to cultivate such a sense of superiority. So I guess there's that.

But, my goodness you can project a whole raft of nonsense onto a single joking post I made. That's so very delusional talented!

And, here's the kicker: even allowing all the above, this bizarre accusation still doesn't follow. Even IF we allow that you are totally correct as regards legality and usage - even then, literally nothing I said (in my single post) comes near to supporting the shrill conclusions you fabricate draw.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The government could really do anything at all, genocide, mass torture, chemical weapons, anything really, and it seems you will just keep defending the government with total disregard for the suffering of the people.

What colour is the sky, in your world?

Citation needed.

If you're going to make insulting such accusations, you better be able to substantiate your ludicrous claims.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact is that when I and I brought up the use of WP, you, Chas and Cjlr, did not take his side and condemn this sadistic and brutal act

I didn't explicitly say innocent people dying is bad because holy fuck why should I have to explicitly say that in order for your deranged mind to consider I actually think so?

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  rather you HAVE been defending it this whole time

Um, no. Haven't we been over this?

And, for serious? "This whole time"? In the one jocular post I made? Guy. Reality. You should try it some time. Start small - the occasional visit. Maybe you'll like it. Stay for a bit longer next time. Work your way up to full-time residence. Anything's possible.

Look, I can't even bring myself to think you're particularly malicious about this. Given the evidence you honestly cannot help resorting to insane troll logic to castigate phantasmal opponent's positions. A fascinating psychological case, to be sure, but not particularly a productive mindset for discussion.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  insisting it wasn't illegal,

Citation needed.

(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  which, even if it weren't wouldn't justify it, and is especially egregious since it obviously WAS illegal!

Citation needed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-11-2013, 11:07 AM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's lying if you know it's wrong. Otherwise it's called just being wrong. Do you know that Chas made his statement in willful error? Because if not, then, y'know; it wasn't lying.

This only applies to the first time Chas made the false claim, in post #10. However, we replied and included direct links and quotes proving that WP IS a chemical weapon. But then in post #18 Chas completely ignored the black and white facts and just repeated the same false statement. Whether Chas WILLFULLY ignored the facts, or if his brain subconsciously blocked out the facts as a defense mechanism, that I obviously cannot tell. However, it is still generally considered lying even if it is due to such an underlying mental disorder.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How about another handy tidbit: white phosphorus is not defined as a chemical weapon in the Geneva Conventions

http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_fr...docID=6357

As always, I defer to the actual text rather than just accepting your self-serving paraphrasing (article II, page 3):

“Toxic chemical means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all
such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.”

So WP and Tungsten ARE toxic chemicals:

“Chemical Weapons means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;”

So, whenever WP (or Tungsten or any other chemical) is used to cause “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”, it IS a chemical weapon under the Geneva Conventions.

Now read I and I's quote: “white phosphorous that is dropped from fighter jets isn't used a smoke screen and the usage of it as was used by Israel is a chemical weapon.”

Note that you don't dispute that Israel used WP as a weapon, because even Israel, after initially denying it, finally conceded when the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch provided proof that “white phosphorous bomb shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded Palestinian refugee camp and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge.... Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found 'indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus' in crowded civilian residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.” And journalists documented civilians being burned alive by Israel's dumping of WP on residential neighborhoods.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Did you read [the Geneva Conventions]? Because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Of course I read it before commenting. I copied/pasted it above, and it says exactly what I said it does.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And also the part where your own supplied definition stated explicitly that use of phosphorus was allowed if it was used as an incendiary and not for its chemical toxicity (see above).

Look, it's impossible to prove 100% what Israel's intentions were dropping WP on residential neighborhoods, and whether they were just really stupid and inept thinking they could fire WP bombs from jets to make smokescreens, or if they were specifically trying to harm people. However, the act was so heinous, so widely condemned by the UN and humanitarian organizations, any compassionate person, imo, would condemn it.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A says: chemical weapons are bad. White phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
(let us here note that two statements have been made; we shall call them X and Y respectively)
B says: white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.
(let us note that this constitutes disagreeing with statement Y above)
A says: HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT WAR CRIMES RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
(let us note that this constitutes interpreting questioning of Y as complete disagreement with X; this is not sane, but it is a favoured pastime of yours)

That's not what happened. Here's a more accurate recap:

A says: It's bad that Israel burned people alive with WP bombs
B says: There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon
A says: Wrong: Here's a copy of the Geneva Convention proving that ANY use of chemicals like this is illegal.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Here's the reports from the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. YES, this WAS a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Why do you keep defending burning people alive with chemical weapons
B says: I'm not. I'm just stating the facts.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Note that I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately; that's quite the claim. As with, y'know, any claim made by anyone ever, I'm afraid I'll require some substantiation before I accept it. This has, however, no bearing on anything else in your post.

Lies, lies and more lies. Seriously you think you can just lie like this and nobody is going to call you out on it? When did I and I ever say this? Please copy/paste.

You have the audacity to complain that I put your words in your mouth, and then look at this statement you hypocrite! All I and I said was the factual statement that Israel fired WP bombs from jets, and that using them like this is not reasonably considered a “smoke screen”. That statement above only exists in your fantasy world.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and you and Chas continue to insist that it wasn't illegal

Nope. Didn't even say that.

Yes, you did. Chas wrote “White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.” (which means, it's not illegal) You wrote: “Pointing out that further restriction on the use of chemical weapons, without a change in definitions of such, would have no effect on the use of white phosphorus, which is not currently classified as a chemical weapon...” (which also means, it's not illegal).

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And, here's the kicker: even allowing all the above, this bizarre accusation still doesn't follow. Even IF we allow that you are totally correct as regards legality and usage - even then, literally nothing I said (in my single post) comes near to supporting the shrill conclusions you fabricate draw.

Yes, whenever A condemns an action, and B keeps repeating “there's no law against it” even after being shown that there IS a law against, it is defending A's action. If you saw someone beating a dog with a bat and commented how horrible it was, and I said “No law against it”, and you showed me the animal cruelty laws, but I just stubbornly kept saying “No law against it”, YES, that is tacitly defending the beating of the dog.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The government could really do anything at all, genocide, mass torture, chemical weapons, anything really, and it seems you will just keep defending the government with total disregard for the suffering of the people.

What colour is the sky, in your world?

Citation needed.

If you're going to make insulting such accusations, you better be able to substantiate your ludicrous claims.

The fact is that I and I, like the UN and all humanitarian organizations, condemned Israel's burning of Palestinians alive with chemical weapons. And you STILL refuse to accept the facts and keep defending this action. This thread is the substantiation.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I didn't explicitly say innocent people dying is bad because holy fuck why should I have to explicitly say that in order for your deranged mind to consider I actually think so?

Sure you didn't explicitly express your love of killing innocent people, but you DO keep defending it!

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 10:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  rather you HAVE been defending it this whole time

Um, no. Haven't we been over this?

Yes, even in your last post you STILL keep insisting that Israel didn't break any laws, violate any conventions, or commit any crimes, by burning alive innocent Palestinian civilians!

Look, on the political views thread I accurately predicted that the only time we would ever disagree on a policy was when you were using threats of violence against people to force them into doing things against their will. BUT, back then I never imagined that we'd actually disagree on actual violence using chemical weapons to burn populations alive. When I and I pointed out such a heinous action as burning innocent people alive, something so widely condemned by human rights organizations, I seriously thought it would be uncontroversial. I seriously expected that even you and Chas would have responded "Yes, that was abhorrent, and a black mark on Israel". I never imagined you'd be SOOO into violence as to actually defend such an action. This is why I see you as a club-wielding neanderthal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 11:52 AM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's lying if you know it's wrong. Otherwise it's called just being wrong. Do you know that Chas made his statement in willful error? Because if not, then, y'know; it wasn't lying.

This only applies to the first time Chas made the false claim, in post #10. However, we replied and included direct links and quotes proving that WP IS a chemical weapon. But then in post #18 Chas completely ignored the black and white facts and just repeated the same false statement. Whether Chas WILLFULLY ignored the facts, or if his brain subconsciously blocked out the facts as a defense mechanism, that I obviously cannot tell. However, it is still generally considered lying even if it is due to such an underlying mental disorder.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How about another handy tidbit: white phosphorus is not defined as a chemical weapon in the Geneva Conventions

http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_fr...docID=6357

As always, I defer to the actual text rather than just accepting your self-serving paraphrasing (article II, page 3):

“Toxic chemical means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all
such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.”

So WP and Tungsten ARE toxic chemicals:

“Chemical Weapons means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;”

So, whenever WP (or Tungsten or any other chemical) is used to cause “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”, it IS a chemical weapon under the Geneva Conventions.

Now read I and I's quote: “white phosphorous that is dropped from fighter jets isn't used a smoke screen and the usage of it as was used by Israel is a chemical weapon.”

Note that you don't dispute that Israel used WP as a weapon, because even Israel, after initially denying it, finally conceded when the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch provided proof that “white phosphorous bomb shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded Palestinian refugee camp and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge.... Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found 'indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus' in crowded civilian residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.” And journalists documented civilians being burned alive by Israel's dumping of WP on residential neighborhoods.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Did you read [the Geneva Conventions]? Because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Of course I read it before commenting. I copied/pasted it above, and it says exactly what I said it does.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And also the part where your own supplied definition stated explicitly that use of phosphorus was allowed if it was used as an incendiary and not for its chemical toxicity (see above).

Look, it's impossible to prove 100% what Israel's intentions were dropping WP on residential neighborhoods, and whether they were just really stupid and inept thinking they could fire WP bombs from jets to make smokescreens, or if they were specifically trying to harm people. However, the act was so heinous, so widely condemned by the UN and humanitarian organizations, any compassionate person, imo, would condemn it.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A says: chemical weapons are bad. White phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
(let us here note that two statements have been made; we shall call them X and Y respectively)
B says: white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.
(let us note that this constitutes disagreeing with statement Y above)
A says: HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT WAR CRIMES RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
(let us note that this constitutes interpreting questioning of Y as complete disagreement with X; this is not sane, but it is a favoured pastime of yours)

That's not what happened. Here's a more accurate recap:

A says: It's bad that Israel burned people alive with WP bombs
B says: There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon
A says: Wrong: Here's a copy of the Geneva Convention proving that ANY use of chemicals like this is illegal.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Here's the reports from the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. YES, this WAS a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Why do you keep defending burning people alive with chemical weapons
B says: I'm not. I'm just stating the facts.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Note that I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately; that's quite the claim. As with, y'know, any claim made by anyone ever, I'm afraid I'll require some substantiation before I accept it. This has, however, no bearing on anything else in your post.

Lies, lies and more lies. Seriously you think you can just lie like this and nobody is going to call you out on it? When did I and I ever say this? Please copy/paste.

You have the audacity to complain that I put your words in your mouth, and then look at this statement you hypocrite! All I and I said was the factual statement that Israel fired WP bombs from jets, and that using them like this is not reasonably considered a “smoke screen”. That statement above only exists in your fantasy world.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Nope. Didn't even say that.

Yes, you did. Chas wrote “White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.” (which means, it's not illegal) You wrote: “Pointing out that further restriction on the use of chemical weapons, without a change in definitions of such, would have no effect on the use of white phosphorus, which is not currently classified as a chemical weapon...” (which also means, it's not illegal).

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And, here's the kicker: even allowing all the above, this bizarre accusation still doesn't follow. Even IF we allow that you are totally correct as regards legality and usage - even then, literally nothing I said (in my single post) comes near to supporting the shrill conclusions you fabricate draw.

Yes, whenever A condemns an action, and B keeps repeating “there's no law against it” even after being shown that there IS a law against, it is defending A's action. If you saw someone beating a dog with a bat and commented how horrible it was, and I said “No law against it”, and you showed me the animal cruelty laws, but I just stubbornly kept saying “No law against it”, YES, that is tacitly defending the beating of the dog.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What colour is the sky, in your world?

Citation needed.

If you're going to make insulting such accusations, you better be able to substantiate your ludicrous claims.

The fact is that I and I, like the UN and all humanitarian organizations, condemned Israel's burning of Palestinians alive with chemical weapons. And you STILL refuse to accept the facts and keep defending this action. This thread is the substantiation.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I didn't explicitly say innocent people dying is bad because holy fuck why should I have to explicitly say that in order for your deranged mind to consider I actually think so?

Sure you didn't explicitly express your love of killing innocent people, but you DO keep defending it!

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Um, no. Haven't we been over this?

Yes, even in your last post you STILL keep insisting that Israel didn't break any laws, violate any conventions, or commit any crimes, by burning alive innocent Palestinian civilians!

Look, on the political views thread I accurately predicted that the only time we would ever disagree on a policy was when you were using threats of violence against people to force them into doing things against their will. BUT, back then I never imagined that we'd actually disagree on actual violence using chemical weapons to burn populations alive. When I and I pointed out such a heinous action as burning innocent people alive, something so widely condemned by human rights organizations, I seriously thought it would be uncontroversial. I seriously expected that even you and Chas would have responded "Yes, that was abhorrent, and a black mark on Israel". I never imagined you'd be SOOO into violence as to actually defend such an action. This is why I see you as a club-wielding neanderthal.

You continue to do the same dishonest shit. cjlr already pointed out in detail what you have gotten wrong.

You continue to misrepresent what people say and to then assume what they believe.

You are grossly dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 12:14 PM
Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
What was the point if this thread? Just to get people angry? Why?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 12:21 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 11:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  You continue to misrepresent what people say and to then assume what they believe. You are grossly dishonest.

In Cjlr's last post he wrote: "Note that I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately; that's quite the claim."

Please copy/paste where IandI ever said anything remotely like that. I dare you. Copy/paste. Don't keep running off insisting you guys are right all along. Back it up with a copy/paste, or admit that Cjlr fabricated it and falsely attributed it to IandI.

As far as whether I misrepresented what you said, I DID copy/paste your quotes verbatim, so despite any commentary I may have added, the reader was accurately informed and could make his own decision. Who is being dishonest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 12:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as whether I misrepresented what you said, I DID copy/paste your quotes verbatim, so despite any commentary I may have added, the reader was accurately informed and could make his own decision. Who is being dishonest?

No, you did it out of context. And incompletely.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 12:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 12:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as whether I misrepresented what you said, I DID copy/paste your quotes verbatim, so despite any commentary I may have added, the reader was accurately informed and could make his own decision. Who is being dishonest?

No, you did it out of context. And incompletely.

Bull shit. I copied/pasted your ENTIRE post. Show me where I truncated or edited anything you said. My adding commentary to your posts is in an entirely different league from what Cjlr did, where he just fabricated statements that were not even similar to anything that was said, and falsely attributed them. Note that you STILL refuse to copy/paste where IandI said anything like "Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately". Your refusal proves you accept that Cjlr completely fabricated that statement, which is nothing like me copy/pasting your entire post and adding my commentary.

Now, in reality I do NOT think that you and Cjlr are actually such monsters that you really think it's cool to burn people alive. Instead, what I think is going on is that you and Cjlr are SOOO stubborn, closed-minded and unwilling to consider any new perspective that ANYTHING IandI, a communist, or myself, a libertarian, says, you will refuse accept, no matter how blatantly obvious. Even when we make a statement that is SOOOO uncontroversial, that burning people alive is bad, you STILL insist that we can't possibly be true and cannot bring yourself to agree. Thus, if we cannot get you to accept that dumping chemical weapons on a residential neighborhood is bad, how on earth will I _EVER_ get you to accept something infinitely more nuanced, like that US monetary policy is creating inequality and poverty?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: