Psychotic?


By Advis3r
January 3, 2012
Share

Obviously Psychotic still can't tell a Jose from an advis3r - with his every post he confirms he is a Phoney Psychotic Bigot and the last one was a case in point.

Notice how Psychotic uses the the intellectually challenged Jew baiter's term for the Israel Defence Forces - dead giveaway that.

He obviously also has reading and comprehension difficulties - as I pointed out the International Red Cross confirmed that Israel's use of the shells was lawful - but Psychotic was never one to let facts get in the way of his blatant lies and libels.

Yes, mercifully the shells on this occasion caused no injuries and landed in open fields - unlike the terrorists who Psychotic supports we value life but that was not the intention of the mindless scum who fired the phosphorus shells with the intention of causing death or injury thereby committing a war crime and who would have rejoiced and handed out sweets if Jewish children had heaven forfend been killed or injured by those shells.

Psychotic's motto - when confronted by the truth i.e. of Israel's overriding intention to do all possible to minimise civilian casualties as borne out by the facts - try to denigrate the messenger.

All in all a total and miserable fail - but should we have expected anything different from a complete and utter Phoney?

COMMENTS

Real Real Zionist

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:36

Rate this:

0 points

Nice try, but a miserable fail. You are too obvious to be effectively disingenuous.

Even if what you have said is accurate(koff), all we have is a red cross official saying that at that point in time, HE had no evidence that the use of phosphorus had been unlawful. Plenty of evidence has come to light since.

Further, the IOF tried to deny any use of the stuff at all, only admitting it when the evidence became overwhelming.

Dead give away that.


Advis3r

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 14:24

Rate this:

0 points

You said

"Even if what you have said is accurate(koff), all we have is a red cross official saying that at that point in time, HE had no evidence that the use of phosphorus had been unlawful. Plenty of evidence has come to light since.
Further, the IOF tried to deny any use of the stuff at all, only admitting it when the evidence became overwhelming"

Now prove it.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 14:49

Rate this:

0 points

Prove what?


Advis3r

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:07

Rate this:

0 points

Wriggle wriggle you made a claim i.e. "plenty of evidence has come to light" now prove it or withdraw it.
You had better be aware though that there is no such evidence the IDF, in a statement, announced following the false allegations you refer to,:

“This particular investigation is dealing with the use of ammunition containing elements of phosphorous, including, amongst others, the 155mm smoke shells which were referred to in the Human Rights Watch report. This type of ammunition disperses in the atmosphere and creates an effective smoke screen. It is used by many western armies.” The IDF furthermore stated that based on the findings at this stage, “it is already possible to conclude that the IDF's use of smoke shells was in accordance with international law. These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless.” The IDF also reiterated that smoke shells are not an incendiary weapon and that international law does not ban the use of smoke shells for the purpose of screening."

In short
1) The number of HRW statements, their focus, and type of language used is far more intense than the organization's calls on Hamas to stop its use of human shields and of indiscriminate rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilians -- both war crimes under international humanitarian law.
2) HRW's claims, are inconsistent and not subject to verification, following a pattern of political and ideological attacks in the 2006 Lebanon war (including false claims disseminated by HRW in the Qana incident), and in other examples, as documented by NGO Monitor http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?relrelated=0&id=2233.
3) HRW's "evidence" is based upon innuendo and "eyewitness" reports. One report states that "[o]n January 9, Human Rights Watch researchers on a ridge overlooking Gaza from the northwest observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired WP that appeared to be over the Gaza City/Jabaliya area. In addition, Human Rights Watch has analyzed photographs taken by the media on the Israel-Gaza border." HRW does not name its researchers; it does not provide the exact location of its observation; nor does it identify the photos it "analyzed" making independent verification of this "evidence" impossible.
4) The use of flares to assist search and rescue forces and for similar purposes saves lives of injured soldiers and prevents Hamas from kidnapping the bodies of dead soldiers, as has happened in the past, and are legal under all international weapons conventions. If indeed such use occurred, to claim that such operations are somehow illegal or immoral is, in itself, immoral.
5) These HRW claims have been copied in the media (the Guardian, the Times (UK), Ha'aretz, CNN[2]) and by other NGOs. On January 11, the day after HRW issued its reports, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights began issuing allegations of widespread Palestinian casualties and "burns" caused by white phosphorous "bombs". B'Tselem also repeated the charge that Israel was using white phosphorous "illegally" without providing any source for its claim. It never has done - has it apologised for its false allegations? No, it has not done that either and nor has HRW - shame on them.
As I have said treating left wing anti-Israel NGOs with credence is a mistake you make at your own peril.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:24

Rate this:

0 points

Jose I am merely trying to help you get some precision and focus into your life.

What is it exactly you invited me to prove?


Advis3r

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:28

Rate this:

0 points

My fault for trying to engage a psychotic.


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:25

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ, I think Advis3r wants you to prove that Israel used white phosphorus shells illegally in Gaza.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:09

Rate this:

0 points

OK well since he seems extremely reluctant to answer himself I will take your word for it.

Proof is a strange thing. It is impossible to " prove " something to someone who won't accept any proof.

I can't prove that water boils at 100c at sea level.Or that the earth is round ( not to a flat earther like Jose anyway).

But taking a deep breath and knowing I am going to regret this...

We seem to have accumulated a number of premises, most supplied by Jose his very self. And from these premises a conclusion indisputably follows. Simple classical Aristotelian logic.

The JPost is a reliable source.

The JPost says that the use of white phosphorus near civiilans is a contravention of international law.

Gaza City is near civilians.

Israel used white phosphorous shells in Gaza City.

Therefore Israel used white phosphorous shells illegally.

Now this doesn't PROVE that Israel used white phosphorous illegally. While the conclusion undoubtedly follows from the premises, one or more of the premises might be false.

So Jose do you accept the conclusion or do you propose to tell the people which of these premises is false ?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS