Brit killed by IOF cluster bomb.

[Johnny Canuck3]

I base my view that rachmanin is a deluded racist cunt on his postings here and the proven lies he promulgates.

That .

But they're not lies.

Just because ten people rush to follow his post to say 'Lies!', doesn't mean that they're lies.

He's a guy who's been there, but he doesn't support the party line of the pro palestinian westerners who go to gaza and come back to report Israeli atrocities, to everyone's solemn approval.

There was one thread where the editor even came on to stop us from discussing what this one poster was saying from palestine. We had to sit there like good children watching a documentary in Social class.

When rachamim speaks, there's no hushing so that we can view the documentary. There's a chorus of shouting, as if loud voices will somehow disprove what it is that he says.

Too bad that it doesn't work that way; then the crowd would always have what it wanted.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Again, why not make your case instead of insulting a man you have never met? Pretty silly I think. So insulted by what Israel does, a country you have no connection to in a place you have no ties to. Sad really.

Because he has no real answer. Easier for him to put his fingers in his ears and hum loudly, in an attempt to drown you out.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I can kind of understand it though. It would be tough to invest so much emotional capital in a position, to suddenly find out that the foundation is a little bit shaky.

Answer: start shouting!

 

[nino_savatte]

Again, why not make your case instead of insulting a man you have never met? Pretty silly I think. So insulted by what Israel does, a country you have no connection to in a place you have no ties to. Sad really.

What? You never insult anyone that you've never met? Pull the other one, pal.

 

[teqniq]

Tecniq: Cool, so then you should just be able to leave me alone, right? I mean, I do know how tempting it is to insult people from the anonnymity of a PC, posting under some silly screen name and all but surely you could learn to restrain yourself to someone as disgusting as me, yes?

Actually I have no problem restraining myself most of the time but when you post unsourced assertions on here to the effect that maybe:

Since Hezbollah was the first entity to use them in that war, and launched mmany hundreds of them, what would make you EVER think it was IDF ordnance?

I feel the need to to point out that yes, you are delusional, as laptop said, probably paid and also a liar. Nor am I above resorting to insults when you seek to derail a thread about a bloke who was doing an exceedingly dangerous job for which even if I had the skills I would probably have serious qualms about doing for rather obvious reasons.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because he has no real answer. Easier for him to put his fingers in his ears and hum loudly, in an attempt to drown you out.

Says the man who cut and pastes some of the most blatant propaganda that I've ever seen. You've got some cheek.

 

[rachamim18]

Teqnic: See, unlike you, I happened to be there. I was there when they fired the first one and I was there as they continued. I was also in Israel cleaning them up for almost 3 months afterward. BUT...EVEN IF, you find anything I say disturbing, hy try and antagonise me? AS I said, you post under some silly name, lob vile insults, and retreat back to your keybaord. IF you are so adamant of your "facts," simply argue your case based on them. What I am or am not should not matter at all. I am not a culeterbomb, i am not the nation of Israel. I am someone though who has an opinion and am able to offer it without trying to insult you. Perhaps one day you can join me.

"Paid." I sure am, by the bag of rice. Want some 20 tonner? What a sad thing really. Anyone contradicting your immense world vision MUST be a paid agent on some nefarious mission. If I were trying to lower myself a few levels I would offer that they DO have medicine for this sort of condition and then offer you help in finding a good counselor.

"Bloke doing a dangerous job." So now it is just about defneding brave and gallant people. Guess what? He was getting paid. It was his job. Even if he did it for free, he chose to do it.

As a Westerner he surely knew the chances of an early demise. If so, it was his choice.

I happened to do it myself for almost 3 months, courtesy of Hezbollah. Had I died I would have known it was a chance I willingly took. I would say stop whining to anyone who does. Noone forces a foreigner to get involved.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Says the man who cut and pastes some of the most blatant propaganda that I've ever seen. You've got some cheek.

You've forgotten again.

The editor requested, more than once, that you and I stay the hell away from each other. I'm abiding by it: why don't you continue to do it too?

 

[laptop]

Because he has no real answer. Easier for him to put his fingers in his ears and hum loudly, in an attempt to drown you out.

Says the man who cut and pastes some of the most blatant propaganda that I've ever seen. You've got some cheek.

 

[nino_savatte]

You've forgotten again.

The editor requested, more than once, that you and I stay the hell away from each other. I'm abiding by it: why don't you continue to do it too?

If that is the case, why are you popping up and laying into me with your snide comments? Moreover, why are you replying to my posts? Why is it you feel the need to agree with L&L when he makes his snide comments? it would seem that you have double standards and wouldn't recognise hypocrisy if it came up and spat in your face.

If I see a blatant lie or, what I recognise to be propaganda, I am going to comment on it. Tough, if you don't like it.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield: HRW issued a report on it although they did not discussho did it first.

As for who did it first, I COULD look for it but I do not expect I will as it makes no difference really. See, we are a sovereign and legal armed force who wre engaging in legal military objectives. We do not need to make excuses about who engaged in it first.

Hezbollah is illegal simply by its existence and therefore has no legal objectives, at all. Although it is really irrelevant as to whether or not Hezbollah had military objectives in mind when they lobbed Clusters and Phosphorous at us (they did not because they are unable to aim them at all, and because they only landed in civilain areas), it is a worthy topic to demonstrate what Israel must deal with on an almost daily basis.


You do not need planes to emply Cluster munitions. Please look into it.

As for planes per se,they do have more than few Drones so even if it was an air delivered munition, they can easily do it.

As for our last nonsense, will you ever act in an adult manner? I have adressed that paticular question umpteenth times. Curiously though, you ACT as if the affair disturbs you in soem way and yet you have never expressed any cares about the words used against me.

I am fine being called a lair by folks using silly screennames who never met me, but i do not care to be called all manner of expletices, even by semi-anonymous people.

so that's no source for that then.

I have no reason to look into i'm well aware of the deployment methods of cluster munitions, all of which need an airborne deleivery system, with the exception of cluster type incendary motars which are called insendary motars not cluster bombs you were deleiberatly specific abotu the type of muntions which were being used and decided to make them comparible with the isreali ones used in an illegal war against a sovergin nation.

So that source if you please.

The reason anyonimous people call you a liar repeatdly on internet bulletin boards is that you have a tendancy to make these wild statements but are totally with ablity to actually provide prove or data which would make them have any form of vaildity within the topic being debated.

in this instance you well they did it first argument rather falls by the way side if no supporting evidence to back up that assertation, historically, factually or indeed at all can be brought to the floor in order to widen the parameters of the debate into whether a comparible show of force by one side should be met with an equal display of force by the other.

Instead what we are left with once again is your rambelling nonsense with no attention to detial which leave little but half truths and slurs which not only discredit any debate which may be had around the subejct of like for like force and retailiation, but also once again prove you are the sound of one hand clapping.

Post the sources for your claim which are independant and verifiable.

or again be dismissed as a joker who is talking nonsense in order to further some agenda which would make even the most hard core fundamentalist of any disapline feel uneasy...

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: "No source." Nope, I did not say that. This is not the first time you have put words into my mouth. What I said stands true. IF I do you the favor, will it really change anything you say or think? I could produce a paper signed by Nasrallh or his Iranain handelrs and it would not count one iota with you.

As I said before, Hezbollah is illegal under international Law simply by existing. It also DID use the weapons, as claimed by HRW. HRW (by the way their words mean nothing to me because I see the group as inherently biased in favor of Arabs 9 times out of 10, as we saw at Durban,etc., but add their name because you have quoted them in the past. Since you have accepted them as bonafide, it should be enough. Scores of media sources have also reported Hezbolli usage of Clusters so it is one and the same) also cited them for not aiming, but instead firing indiscriminately south. Ergo, Hezbollah is at fault even if they fired them 2nd (or any other number).

An illegal entity, illegaly using them, against a sovereign army legal employing them (military doctrine and International Law both accept their usage on bonafide military objectives. Objectives are considered bonafide when their fufillment outweigh any possible collateral damage).

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: I suggest that you study military subjects a bit more, at least. Clusters as a rule do not require airborn deiivery. Some forms do. Streamlined munitions, even soem mortat rounds have the same prinicple. You obviously confuse Busters with all Clusters.

I see you mention mortars, good. Incedinaries CAN be Clusters (despite your feeling that they are different, of course they are not) . All incedinaries are not Clusters though. Clousters are used in everything fron anti-tank to heavy artillery (both methods employed by Hezbollah in the war in question).


"Comprable with IDF munitions. " they do not have to be. Ours were airborne because they are much more precise and proper for our objectives. Hezbollah used them as initimidation and terror tools. What do you want the source for? That ours were the same as theirs? They were not. However, that is of no consequence. In fact, theirs were much worse. They did not have a purpose and were erraticly employed with no sen se of ultimate purpose.

"Israel engaged in an illegal war with a sovereign nation." False on both counts. Israel went to war with Hezbollah, not Lebanon although I do not blame you in your confusion since Lebanon and Hezbollah are so interconnected at this point that is very difficult for foreigners to know when one lets off and the other begins.

Israel is the only sovereign nation that was engaged in that war. Israel's border was compromised , its citizens killed by terrorists. Lebanon enters the picture because its land was used by terrorists, and because Lebanon knowingly stood by as Hezbollah launched attack after attack for more than a decade. Lebanon violated International AND Lebanese Law in doing so.

"Wild statements." What? That Hezbollah used Clusters? That they were the first? that they are illegal by International Law? Please be more specific.

You are right though, I rarely offer unsolicited sources. Reason being, most people here are moderately (at least) intelligent adults with access to computers (at the very least). Ergo, they can easilt use any ifno I provide (more than 9 out of 10 times I merely provide factual data, such as names, places, dates, and so on). Instead of stock comments like " 'Palestinians' are bloody murderers, no different than Nazis, and wish to impose worse than Aparthied conidtions among Jews and any other non-Musolim within their territory," I deal with DATA

If a person is either so lazy as to not push a few buttons on Google, or to ask a more pointed question and/or ask for a source, in a civil manner, than I feel a source will not help one iota. The person will not even see the truth if it is wrapped in a bow and placed in their lap.

On the converse,when asked politely, if able, I always provide it. Fellow posters on the other hand just toss an insult, or change the subject without resolving a previous riddle.

"Tendency to make wild statemenjts, etc." Really? Like claiming that an Israeli TV show admitted to splicing and omitting audi tape in the case of a 13 year old tresspasser being shot in a warzone? Or do you mean for claiming ISM doctored photos, gave them to Reuters, and then were forced by Resuters to publicly apologise after having been caught in doctoring photos that supposedly proved that Israel was nefarious,etc? Or is it simply something like "Israel was not first to emply Cluster munitions in 2006 Lrbanon War?"

While I am certainly not infallible, I do happen to have a wide base of knowledge in at least 3 areas of my life (ISrael and Judaisim, Opiates and opioids, and botany). When engaging a subject that I might not remember correctrly or indded, not at all, I take great pains to verify my info at least 3, and very often 6 or more, disparatre sources on the issue. I treasure both factual information AND civility.

I also ask anyone interested to review a thread in which my honest has been challenged. Invariably it is a thread where the name caller has failed to even minimally prove their assertion. Often people attempt to deflect attention from the occurrence by making accusations and sitting back to watch people forget the real issue at hand.

Sad but true.

"In this case, etc., etc." Sorry, I do realise that you have made mistakes in composing and/or typing this but I truly cannot understand a single point made. Please clarifiy it.

"show of force should be mat with a show of force to the first party." No, it should not. It certainly was not the case in this war. The main objective of this war was to push Hezbollah back from our northern border, to north of Alawi. We succeeded in this regard and did so in less than predicted.

We did use force of course. We met heavy resistance most o the way in most of the places. Whose fault is that?

What you see as heavy handed force is actually VERY BASIC military doctrine. You want to go in fast and hard and you want to neutralise as much infrastructure as possible.

The operation was not retaliatory in nature and was not about show of corce. See above.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

don't obfiscate boy and don't be coy you made the claim stop posting up waffle and nonsense and provide a source come on now ...

It's not going to be another thing you've made up, been called on and now can't provide any eviedence for is it...?

just get on with it or again be shown to be a dishonest deabtor

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: What evidence (asking again), that Hezbollah fired first? that you are wrong on Cluster Munitions being ari delivered? Speak up. finally, if it is about Hezbollah firing first (probably a pissing contest, like this exchange), tell me what it will matter and I will do my best to oblige (assuming you stay civil).

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

don't ofiscate boy sources please now...

 

[Grandma Death]

I have adressed that paticular question umpteenth times. Curiously though, you ACT as if the affair disturbs you in soem way and yet you have never expressed any cares about the words used against me.

Without sounding facetious I have now come to the conclusion that you may possibly have serious issues going on in that head of yours.

Apart from plucking ad hom attacks from thin air that have never existed, you live in your own little world whereby you have convinced yourself that you have indeed provided the evidence to the claims you made 10 months ago, and the people that have consistently asked you to back those claims up are the ones that have the problem.

I seriously think you possibly may need help.

 

[Grandma Death]

don't ofiscate boy sources please now...

Can I gently remind posters (present company included) that any requests for sources should form an orderly Q in the interests fair play.

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: see, here is the problem: You are typical of the nonsense in this forum, and quite often this site. You view it as some sort of he -man pissing contest.At the end you go back to your mundane and dreary existence.Others though live this as reality.

You want a source showing who fired the first Cluster, as if that changes anything. Yes, i did post it, as it is fact. I was here when it happened. I picked them up from late August until the 2nd week of December, 2006. I saw what happened, you skimmed fringe sites looking for some pseudo-intellectual fun. Say I do oblige you and look for however long it takes mt find you a site with an url so that you can see that it says just so, what changes? Do you stop insulting me? Do you start acting like an adult? Do you start engaging in honest discussion?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Can I gently remind posters (present company included) that any requests for sources should form an orderly Q in the interests fair play.

Obviously i'm aware of this however i guess it helps if we have some kind oof call waiting message


thanks for your deabte we are rachamim18 corp appreaciate your questions, we are very busy right now but do hope to answer your posts and provide full satisfation with in 3 threads, our current hold time however is 59 threads. If you'd like to ask us questions later when we are less busy please try again then...

rachamim18: You made the supercillious claim, either you can back up your FACTS with the FACTS or they are merely pointification and dare i say it Lies.

At no point have i insluted you dearie I'm doubting your word as you make fantasical claims with out supporting evidence, this isn't an insult but a recorded fact. When challenaged you refuse poitn blank to provided any verififcation for your claims which leads to them often being dismissed as made up fantasy. If you wish your claims to be taken seriously on this debate board oyu must learn to provide soruces as it clearly states in the FAQ. This is a deabte after all.

BTW you should ook up the Ad homien part of the whole affiar you ridiculious attempt at character assination not only makes you look like a wriggling ever changing position inconsistant lout but also goes to show that rather than being sure of any of your FACTS you are more intrested in defening your self by whatever comes to hand.

See I'd have to accept what you say if you posted up the refferences which confirmed it, there'd be no question, same applies to Granny for that matter, but as you continue to fail at each turn it can only be that you are A) too lazy to actually provide soruces for you comments in which case you are nto worht bothering with as you hve no intrest in debate or B) are making it up and have been called on another LIE which you cannot substanitate and feel this obfiscation will on some level cover up the LIE or people will forget about it.

We Won't, We Don't.

So which is it are you a LIAR or LAZY?

of course should you get of oyur arse and find sources for your claims then you'd be neither of these and the debate can move forward taking your Points forward as written.

Which is it to be?

No more wriggling, squriming nonsenseical claims about posters motives actions or other wise quote your sorces deabte propperly or alterantively fail to do so and you now will be admitting you have lied.

It's a real easy one for you now as you have painted yourself into this corner.

So your sorces anythign less is now an admittance of your lying...

are you a liar rachamim18??

 

[Grandma Death]

Do you start engaging in honest discussion?

Oh the irony.

 

[rachamim18]

Garfield: So depsite all your words, the answer is...NO. Thanks for saving me the time I would have spent. Anyway...onto the next insult...

 

[Grandma Death]

Anyway...onto the next insult...

Yes lets move onto the next imaginary ad hom.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield: So depsite all your words, the answer is...NO. Thanks for saving me the time I would have spent. Anyway...onto the next insult...

That's you admiotting your lying righ t there that is...

well done...

how hard was that do you feel any sense of release, i know i do, i mean i wasn't expectig you to just come out and say it but there you did....

Ahy answer other than the source of your claims will be construed as you lying becuase that's what you are doing....

Thanks for playing...

 

[rachamim18]

The first use of Clusters occurred on 7/25/06 when Hezbollah fired two volleys of Type 81s into the Israeli-Arab village of M'ghar. Israel still did not employ them until just before August when we began using M42s. In fact, the general complaint against "Israel was the fact that Israel began employing them so late into the conflict when it had just about cinched its primary objective and a Cease Fire was beginning to take shape.


I am also noticing that you have ignored your mistake about Cluster Munitions only being air delivered. Quite telling.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's you admiotting your lying righ t there that is...

well done...

how hard was that do you feel any sense of release, i know i do, i mean i wasn't expectig you to just come out and say it but there you did....

Ahy answer other than the source of your claims will be construed as you lying becuase that's what you are doing....

Thanks for playing...

Do you ever.....ever.......attack the things he says, as opposed to simply attacking the man himself?

Can you disprove one thing he says?

If you did, you might get a bit of credibility. Not just you by the way, but all the cackling hens.

 

[Grandma Death]

Can you disprove one thing he says?

Yeah probably -I mean the supposed confession by the ISM leadership that they doctored the corrie photos? Garf has been asking him for the evidence to prove this 'fact'.....rach hasnt been forthcoming. Therefore he has disproved one of the many things he has said.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yeah probably -I mean the supposed confession by the ISM leadership that they doctored the corrie photos? Garf has been asking him for the evidence to prove this 'fact'.....rach hasnt been forthcoming. Therefore he has disproved one of the many things he has said.

Garf asked for evidence. How does that prove anything?

 

[Grandma Death]

Garf asked for evidence. How does that prove anything?

His silence speaks volumes. That is he couldnt provide the evidence to back up a claim he made. Therefore he has disproved what he has said.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

His silence speaks volumes. That is he couldnt provide the evidence to back up a claim he made. Therefore he has disproved what he has said.

Maybe in your backward logical universe.