Another of HHW's lies
dsharavi
On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Did you know that America has committed herself to
>keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
No. And neither do you.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
From Wiki:
"Emergency sales to Israel
"According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
It was a typical Israeli gambit, to make the United States responsible
for supplying the "loss" of Egypt's oil when Israel withdrew from
Sinai under Zionist protest.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > No. And neither do you.
>
> > Deborah
>
> From Wiki:
>
> "Emergency sales to Israel
>
> "According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
> United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
> make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
Great, thanks for confirming that you're a liar, but I assure you no
confirmation was needed. Of course, your statement, that America is
committed to keeping Israel's tanks "topped off", is a lie - had you
simply stated the truth, that, in an emergency similar to the arab oil
embargo , the US committed to sell Israel oil for maximum 5 years,
that would have been fine, but of course, topping off is precisely the
opposite of an emergency. Anyway, since you are not a person of
principle, you have zero shame, so you'll continue posting your lies
and I and others will continue to catch you.
dsharavi
> > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > No. And neither do you.
> > Deborah
>
wrote:
> From Wiki:
> "Emergency sales to Israel
> "According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
> United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
> make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
Congratulations on your uncharacteristic spate of honesty which impels
you to admit that you lied when you wrote that America committed to
keeping Israel's oil tanks "topped off". In fact, as you were no doubt
partly aware when you lied about the 1975 MOU, that agreement stated
that:
"If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for
domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances
WHERE NO QUANTATIVE RESTRICTINS EXIST ON THE ABILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PROCURE OIL to meet its normal requirements, the United
States Government will promptly make oil AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY
ISRAEL to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of
Israel."
We further agreed to make oil AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY ISRAEL "in
circumstances where' quantitative restrictions through embargo or
otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet
its normal requirements", and further taking into account"additional
expenditures for the import of oil to replace that which would have
ordinarily come from Abu Rudeis and Ras Sudar".
Of course, you preferred to make it sound as if we were giving it away
free in 1975, instead of offering it for sale on our terms.
It was renewed in 1979, with the proviso of annual meetings
"to review Israel's continuing oil requirement," and again in 1980. As
of today, Israel is now exporting 69,580 barrels of oil per day.
Not that any of the above facts matter to you, of course, but
congratuations again on your rare burst of honesty in admitting
yourself a liar.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 2, 1:46 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > > No. And neither do you.
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > From Wiki:
>
> > "Emergency sales to Israel
>
> > "According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
> > United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
> > make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
(Clipping your ad hominem attacks leaves only one "idea" in your
entire post:
"........topping off is precisely the opposite of an emergency."
"Emergency" is obviously implicit in what I wrote. It's also obvious
to you, Ratner, if only because *I* wrote it. And "topped-off" is
perfect.
Concentrate now and think before you type. The alternatives to those
concepts would be first, that we owe oil sales to Israel from our own
reserves at the expense of our own national security on demand and
regardless of circumstance, and that in an emergency we would only
make deliveries when Israel had exhausted her supply. These absurd
assumptions can't pass any credibility test. They show up in the weird
mental world of Israel-first Zionist fanatics such as yourself who
think only of the search for opportunities for labeling his opponent a
"liar."
Objectively you are also convinced that we Americans should be in
Israel's debt forever. For what? The Holocaust and the Czar's pogroms
of course. Face it, Ratner, we're not Germans or Russians. We began
the relationship in 1948 with the scales even---no debt to Israel
whatever---. They've been tilted to Israel ever since and there is no
sign of abatement much less termination of the problem. The present
arrangement has a (haha) COLA clause---and not only that, as always
it's front loaded in favor of Israel. At the root of it is not just
donor exhaustion but a mounting consensus that we've been exploited
unconscionably by Israel with no recognition of our own national
interests for sixty years now. It's time for Israel to become a NORMAL
nation by learning to live without special treatment, without
preference over anyone else. It won't be easy for her any more that it
is for a drunk to go through the dts. But it's got to be done. The
future of the U.S. requires heavy pressure on the Israeli government.
This sort of thing happens to you all the time. You need to try at
least to reason through the implications of what you are going type in
advance. You also need to steel yourself to be intellectually honest.
I know that will be very difficult but you need to try. You should
also read some post-war American diplomatic history featuring our
continually one-way relationship with the Jewish State. Most anyone
who has knows about the oil deal. Many of us who are old enough to
remember it from 1975 do so with a touch of bitterness. I'm still
decidedly put off by the memory. It's not the oil in particular. It's
the broader problem. The concessions necessary to BUY Israel out of
the Sinai were American, not Egyptian. *That* put me off. It was
unnatural. It was humiliating for us to have to pay the price for
Israel's Zionist policies in the region.
By the way, thank you for the **wonderful** news that you are now
relying on others to tighten up your inept struggles here. At least
you and they recognize your problems. I'm hoping that these scholars
and gentlemen will surface instead of lurking. Any man would. Remember
now, no more sock puppets.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
See my response to Ratner. Ive clipped your post because it is
offensive and off the point until you had the clever idea to turn it
into a new thread. We're going to get to get into the subject of the
article below the correct thread but I'm going to give it to you here
so you have a chance to think about a serious historical issue.
THE AGE OF BRASS
By RUSSELL F. WEIGLEY; Russell F. Weigley, the Distinguished
University Professor at Temple University, is writing a history of
modern warfare.
Published: March 12, 1989
FOUR STARS By Mark Perry. Illustrated. 412 pp. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company. $24.95.
Mark Perry's ''Four Stars'' is a history of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that focuses on an issue of civil-military relations not often
addressed, however much those relations are generally debated: can
military leaders be expected to create forces and strategies that will
meet the needs of national policy without also participating in making
the policy? To Mr. Perry, the entire recent history of the Joint
Chiefs, which consists of the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and
Marines, hinges on a little-known and still scantily documented crisis
involving a rebellion of the Chiefs in August 1967 over how the
Vietnam War was being fought, a rebellion that sprang from the above
question. Mr. Perry, a Washington correspondent for The Nation whose
first book this is, believes that, as far as the Chiefs are concerned,
everything that came before August 1967 helped lead to that crisis and
almost all events since have revolved around efforts to prevent its
repetition. While ''Four Stars'' often diverges from this
straightforward theme, and in doing so achieves a wealth of historical
detail, there is much to be said in favor of its central organizing
thesis as a key to understanding the Joint Chiefs.
The early years of the Joint Chiefs, from their first meeting on Feb.
9, 1942, were a time of conspicuous interservice quarreling. Mr. Perry
may overemphasize the infighting during World War II a bit, but
certainly interservice rivalry dominated public perceptions of the
Chiefs from the Harry S. Truman years of the so-called Revolt of the
Admirals (a feud among the services over control of America's nuclear
arsenal) through the Dwight D. Eisenhower years of Army discontent
with the policy of massive nuclear retaliation. Mr. Perry argues,
however, that the interservice battles obscured - and also weakened
the Joint Chiefs' hand in - a more fundamental issue, the Chiefs'
belief that they must have more influence in the formulation of
foreign policy. With only marginal influence on policy making, they
often felt in danger of backing policies for which no adequate
military support was possible.
According to Mr. Perry's account of the 1967 crisis, the Vietnam War
justified the Chiefs' fears. When the Johnson Administration escalated
our involvement in Vietnam, all the Chiefs resisted the drift toward a
ground war involving American troops. Gen. Harold K. Johnson, the Army
Chief of Staff, was the most deeply opposed. At no time did he feel
confident in the wisdom of our fighting in Vietnam, and his custom,
prolonged until it became impossible, of writing personally to the
parents of every soldier killed in action reflected his agonizing over
it. Even the famously hawkish Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force, sought an abrupt escalation of the bombing in
Vietnam precisely to avoid a ground war. Adm. David L. McDonald, the
Chief of Naval Operations, essentially agreed with General LeMay.
Earle G. Wheeler, the Army general who was Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, stood somewhere between General Johnson and General LeMay in
believing that swift and harsh bombing of North Vietnam could actually
short-circuit the war and save South Vietnam. But General Wheeler
tirelessly sought a voice in policy making to avoid an unwinnable
ground war, with intense bombing of the North as the best option he
thought he could offer, but with realistic assessments of the
determination of the North and the viability of the South always as
his desired foundations of policy.
He and the other Chiefs did not believe such realism underlay the
policy making of President Lyndon Johnson or, especially, that of
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The Chiefs' doubts reached
their gravest on Aug. 25, 1967, when Mr. McNamara testified before the
Senate Armed Services Committee and argued that current policy and
strategy would eventually bring victory, this in defiance of the
Chiefs' interpretation of recent intelligence reports and particularly
of their belief that only bombing the North and interdicting its
supplies could possibly win the war. Mr. Perry argues that the Chiefs
regarded this testimony not only as an expression of disagreement with
what they had told Mr. McNamara about immediate policy issues, but as
something much more serious - a rupture of the unofficial contract
between our democracy's civil and military powers, whereby the
military pledges to obey the civil authorities without question but in
return the civilian leaders implicitly pledge that their policies will
not cause needless loss of life.
According to Mr. Perry's sources, on the afternoon after Mr.
McNamara's testimony, General Wheeler proposed that the Chiefs resign
en masse in protest against a policy that was immoral in its sacrifice
of American lives in pursuit of unworkable strategies. By the next
morning, however, General Wheeler reversed course, deciding that mass
resignation would amount to mutiny and that it was better to persist
in seeking change from within than to precipitate an open breakdown of
civil-military relations.
Mr. Perry argues, however, that while the breakdown did not become
open, it forever changed those relations. He portrays the subsequent
history of the Joint Chiefs as a campaign by the military leaders -
now at last minimizing their interservice quarrels - to gain leverage
on policy making to spare them from having to condone actions they
considered futile and even immoral.
This later history culminated in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Defense
Reorganization Act. The law was designed to discourage interservice
battles by making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the
members collectively, responsible for providing military advice to the
President. And, more important, in an attempt to deal with the
underlying cause of the 1967 crisis, the law made the chairman a
member of the National Security Council, assuring him the right to
advise civilian officials whether he was asked or not.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the chairman's advice will be
heeded. Nevertheless, ''Four Stars'' makes it clear that the evolution
of the Joint Chiefs has led to a little-understood reversal of
traditional patterns of the civil-military relationship. The historic
separation of the military from the creation of national policy is at
an end. By law the military is no longer simply the servant of policy.
Some sense of what the implications of this may prove to be emerges
from this thoughtful analysis of the events and ideas that produced
the change.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > > No. And neither do you.
> > > Deborah
Clip
Readers, here is Deborah Sharavi at her finest moment:
-----------------------------------------
On Mar 25, 2:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:25 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I've just posted the Israel-US Memorandum of Understanding
> Which one? There are several.
> Deborah
Readers, please note Deborah Sharavi's disgraceful method of
operation
on behalf of Israel and the Lobby. What I actually wrote about the
Memorandum of Understanding was as follows:
"I've just posted the Israel-US Memorandum of Understanding providing
for these welfare contributions. I've added some observations as to
what I think it means."
Deborah Sharavi wanted to keep you from reading the Memorandum---and
most importantly the comments on its legal status---for political
reasons, i.e., because she doesn't want you to know that the apparent
gift of $30 Billion in weapons over ten years is NOT BINDING ON THE
UNITED STATES. THE MEMORANDUM, OR ANY PART OF IT, MAY BE TERMINATED
AT
WILL AT ANY TIME. So she clipped it after the word
"Understanding" (see about six lines above) in order to be able to
introduce a false impression of ambiguity which she then used to
interject, "Which one? There are several." That was an act of pure
deceit which is characteristic of her here in the role of champion of
the Israeli Lunatic Right and the Israel Lobby.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO ISRAEL AND THE LOBBY? The American people
generally don't know that the arms grant of $30 Billion over 10 years
is not a binding bi-lateral treaty ratified by the Senate. It is a
mere MOU, a mere declaration of the *present* intention of the U.S.
Accordingly they don't know that It can be cancelled or simply not
complied with at any time at the direction of the President with or
without an explanation. The most particular reason she doesn't want
you to know this is that currently there is a stand-off between
Netanyahu and President Obama which looks as though it is going to
escalate with America putting more and more pressure on the Israelis
to settle in good faith with the Palestinians. The endless pipeline
of
weapons which flows to Israel constantly year after year, decade
after
decade, can simply stop at any moment. Such is the power in the
relationship held by the President of the United States.
dsharavi
merits, after having been caught in another of his lies, Hunter Watson
commences, once again, another of his whinges, to wit:
> > > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > > > No. And neither do you.
> > > > Deborah
>
On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Clip
>
> Readers, here is Deborah Sharavi at her finest moment:
> -----------------------------------------
snip ANOTHER post from which Watson fled, having been impotent to
respond to that post on its merits.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
massive snip of facts by Watson.
> On Apr 2, 3:55 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another massive snip of facts by Watson
On Apr 2, 3:45 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> See my response to Ratner. Ive clipped your post because
You've clipped my post because you're impotent to respond to it.
[snip the usual Watsonian ad hom and tangential sidedodges into left
field]
Deborah
drahcir
wrote:
> On Apr 2, 12:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 1:46 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > > > No. And neither do you.
>
> > > > Deborah
>
> > > From Wiki:
>
> > > "Emergency sales to Israel
>
> > > "According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
> > > United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
> > > make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
>
> (Clipping your ad hominem attacks leaves only one "idea" in your
> entire post:
This is what HHW "clipped" - apparently he understands no more what
"ad hominem" means than he does about Israel's history..
Great, thanks for confirming that you're a liar, but I assure you no
confirmation was needed. Of course, your statement, that America is
committed to keeping Israel's tanks "topped off", is a lie - had you
simply stated the truth, that, in an emergency similar to the arab oil
embargo , the US committed to sell Israel oil for maximum 5 years,
that would have been fine, but of course, topping off is precisely the
opposite of an emergency. Anyway, since you are not a person of
principle, you have zero shame, so you'll continue posting your lies
and I and others will continue to catch you.
>
> "........topping off is precisely the opposite of an emergency."
>
> "Emergency" is obviously implicit in what I wrote.
That is a simple and quite idiotic lie. "Topping off" is done when a
tank is nearly full, so there is no imminent need, i.e. no emergency,
therefore "emergency" is anything but implicit in what you wrote.
It's also obvious
> to you, Ratner, if only because *I* wrote it. And "topped-off" is
> perfect.
Yes, it is. A perfect lie.
>
> Concentrate now
As soon as one reads "concentrate now" from the likes of you, it's a
sure sign that steaming, irrelevant piles of HHWBabble are to follow,
posted for one reason only: to vainly attempt to distract from the
very simple matter at hand, which is usually that you blatantly lied.
Buenos noches, senor el cazado.
benjie
wrote:
Good catch "H".
This sharavi thing has long known to be a deceitful, disgusting piece
of work which your post proves beyond any doubt. She is so typical of
the rabid, fanatical, deluded Jews who think they have a God given
right to ride roughshod over goyim.
Well done.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Thanks Ben. This thread is finished.
TallHenry
In article <31345475-d203-4b8d...@35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
benjie <bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Why, aussie? Why?
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31983
"About 20 convicted Australian pedophiles unsuccessfully tried to
travel to Indonesia and Thailand immediately after the Dec. 26 tsunami
to prey on vulnerable children, a newspaper reported on Saturday."
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/austral.htm
"Child prostitution in Australia was studied by ECPAT, which collected
information from early 471 government and non-government agencies working
with children. The study, the first of its kind, revealed a vicious cycle
leading to child commercial sexual activities."
http://www.atimes.com/oceania/AC27Ah03.html
"It also confirmed suspicions the Pacific region has become a new target
for Australian pedophiles fleeing police crackdowns on child sex offences
at home and elsewhere in Asia."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749893067.html?from=moreStories
"Australian pedophiles are part of an organised crime ring preying on
Thailand's vulnerable children, writes Mark Baker."
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Demonstrating his usual impotence in responding to a post on his
> merits, after having been caught in another of his lies, Hunter Watson
> commences, once again, another of his whinges, to wit:
Nervous, Deb. Whose merits? And what the hell is a "whinge"? You've
been telling us you're an American.
>
> > > > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
> > > > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
> > > > > No. And neither do you.
> > > > > Deborah
>
> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Clip
>
> > Readers, here is Deborah Sharavi at her finest moment:
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> snip ANOTHER post from which Watson fled, having been impotent to
> respond to that post on its merits.
>
> Deborah
Excellent, Deb. It's better that you say nothing when you have
nothing. Which is most of the time when you are the agent of a
criminal state.
tdny
'Kosher' bus line operating in Tel Aviv
Line 322, which leaves from city with most liberal reputation in Israel,
forces women to sit in back
Tomer Peleg
Published: 04.01.10, 08:23 / Israel Jewish Scene
A bus line that separates between men and women has
begun operating in Tel Aviv, odd news for many who
consider it Israel's capital of liberality and equality.
Connex line 322, a licensed bus line, travels from Tel Aviv
through Bnei Brak and terminates its route in Ashdod.
Women sit in the back and men sit in the front.
Protest
Signs hung overnight against 'kosher' buses / Kobi Nahshoni
Dozens of young people hang posters on bus stations throughout country
in protest of separate seating between men and women with objective of
showing what public transport could look like if such bus lines are instated
Full Story
"All those who are educated according to the halacha maintain separation,"
says Yisrael as he waits at the bus stop.
"Even in New York you can see single-sex buses."
Moshe Neiman, who travels to Ashdod on line 322,
says its customers understand why separation is necessary.
"There is almost no conflict here.
Most understand the separation and
know there are reasons for it," he says.
When asked what happens when passengers
do not agree to the rules he answers,
"Sometimes it's a difficult process,
but in the end they get the message."
Chairwoman of the City Council,
Yael Dayan, formerly a Knesset member belonging to the Meretz party,
was surprised to learn that a "kosher" bus line was operating in Israel's
most secular city.
"We need to find out if this is a privately owned
line but in any case it is unacceptable," she said.
"I will recommend to passengers to boycott the line.
It cannot be that women, even religious or ultra-Orthodox,
do not understand the meaning of separation in public.
What about couples who board the bus?
Do they present a marriage license so they can sit together?"
drahcir
On Apr 2, 6:26 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 2, 12:02 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 1:46 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
> > > > On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Did you know that America has committed herself to
> > > > >keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
> > > > No. And neither do you.
> > > > Deborah
> > > From Wiki:
> > > "Emergency sales to Israel
> > > "According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal document signed by the
> > > United States and Israel, in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
> > > make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
> (Clipping your ad hominem attacks leaves only one "idea" in your
> entire post:
This is what HHW "clipped" - apparently he understands no more what
"ad hominem" means than he does about Israel's history:
Great, thanks for confirming that you're a liar, but I assure you no
confirmation was needed. Of course, your statement, that America is
committed to keeping Israel's tanks "topped off", is a lie - had you
simply stated the truth, that, in an emergency similar to the arab oil
embargo , the US committed to sell Israel oil for maximum 5 years,
that would have been fine, but of course, topping off is precisely the
opposite of an emergency. Anyway, since you are not a person of
principle, you have zero shame, so you'll continue posting your lies
and I and others will continue to catch you.
> "........topping off is precisely the opposite of an emergency."
> "Emergency" is obviously implicit in what I wrote.
That is a simple and quite idiotic lie. "Topping off" is done when a
tank is nearly full, so there is no imminent need, i.e. no emergency,
therefore "emergency" is anything but implicit in what you wrote.
> It's also obvious
> to you, Ratner, if only because *I* wrote it. And "topped-off" is
> perfect.
Yes, it is. A perfect lie.
> Concentrate now
As soon as one reads "concentrate now" from the likes of you, it's a
sure sign that steaming, irrelevant piles of HHWBabble are to follow,
posted for one reason only: to vainly attempt to distract from the
very simple matter at hand, which is usually that you blatantly lied.
Buenos noches, senor el cazado.
******
Hey H, why not give the group some laughs and explain precisely how
"emergency" is "implicit" in the concept of "topping off"?
dsharavi
[snip of facts by HHW]
>>>>>On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
>>>>>>On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>Did you know that America has committed herself to
>>>>>>>keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
>>>>>>No. And neither do you.
>>>>>>Deborah
>>On Apr 3, 9:06 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Clip
>>>Readers, here is Deborah Sharavi at her finest moment:
>>>-----------------------------------------
[snip H's change of subject and lame sidedodge into a previous post
from another thread wherein he tries to disprover the fact that he had
no facts]
H changes the subject, having been caught in another of his lies, and
being impotent to react other than thrashing around aimlessly.
The fact is H assserted, above, that “ America has committed herself
to keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off”. When H's assertion was
corrected with facts, H admitted that his assertion was a lie.
H then responds with what he THINKS is another of his witty
rejoinders. It proves to be nothing but MOTSS. Caught in yet another
lie, H again thrashes around yet again, but, lacking facts, is reduced
to his usual ad hom
[e.g.:
>>>Readers, please note Deborah Sharavi's disgraceful method of
>>>operation on behalf of Israel and the Lobby]
and his paraphrase of the original post which exposed his previous
lie.
In any event, H's entire response is off topic. The topic of THIS
thread is the correction of H's latest lie, which was easily disproven
by quoting the original 1975 Memorandum of Understanding between
Israel and America, which clearly states:
"If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for
domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances
WHERE NO QUANTATIVE RESTRICTIONS EXIST ON THE ABILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PROCURE OIL to meet its normal requirements, the United
States Government will promptly make oil AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY
ISRAEL to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of
Israel."
H doesn't like the fact that we further agreed to make oil AVAILABLE
FOR PURCHASE BY ISRAEL "in circumstances where quantitative
restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United
States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements", and
further taking into account"additional expenditures for the import of
oil to replace that which would have ordinarily come from Abu Rudeis
and Ras Sudar".
Of course, H preferred to make it sound as if we were giving it away
free in 1975, instead of offering it for sale ON OUR OWN TERMS.
Additionally, the agreement was renewed in 1979, with the proviso of
annual meetings "to review Israel's continuing oil requirement," and
again in 1980. As of today, Israel is now exporting 69,580 barrels of
oil per day.
Not that any of these facts matter to H, of course. H considers
corrections of his blatant lies to be evidence that one is working on
behalf of the “Jewish Lobby”.
If that is a given, can H's anti-American lies be considered evidence
that H is working on behalf of the Oil Lobby and the Communist Lobby
whose standard lines he so slavishly follows? Along with his assiduous
parroting of Communists and anti-American propagandists, of course.
>On Apr 2, 8:49 pm, benjie <bencram...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>Well done.
On Apr 2, 11:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Thanks Ben.
Translation: “Thanks, Benjie, for holding my schlong for me.”
>This thread is finished.
Translation: “Time for Hunter to slip into his boogie shoes.”
Deborah
dsharavi
>>Demonstrating his usual impotence in responding
>>to a post on his merits, after having been caught
>>in another of his lies, Hunter Watson
>>commences, once again, another of his whinges,
>>to wit:
>
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Nervous, Deb. Whose merits?
The merits of the facts, of course.
>And what the hell is a "whinge"? You've
>been telling us you're an American.
Au contraire, old man. I have never felt the need – which you seem to
suffer acutely – to defend repeatedly the fact that I was born and
bred an American, although I do recall observing, once, when you were
vociferously protesting your Trew-Blew patriotism, that my ancestors
were, and had been, comfortably ensconced here for several
generations, when yours first tottered out of steerage and onto these
shores.
>>>>>On Apr 2, 10:02 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>H's demonstrated allergy to facts seems to be increasing.
>
>>>>>>On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>Did you know that America has committed herself to
>>>>>>>keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
>>>>>>No. And neither do you.
>>>>>>Deborah
>
>>On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Clip
>
>>>Readers, here is Deborah Sharavi at her finest moment:
>>>-----------------------------------------
>On Apr 2, 7:23 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>snip ANOTHER post from which Watson fled, having
>>been impotent to respond to that post on its merits.
>>Deborah
>
>Excellent, Deb. It's better that you say nothing
>when you have nothing. Which is most of the time
>when you are the agent of a criminal state.
“Agent for a criminal state” is amusing, considering the fact that
it's Watson who makes a habit of spewing anti-American Communist
drivel. Possibly it's his handlers' code for “facts Hunter Watson is
impotent to refute”.
“Nothing” refers, of course, to the refutation of Watson's previous
lie, as follows:
>>On Mar 31, 6:04 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Did you know that America has committed herself to
>>>keeping Israel's storage tanks topped off?
>
>>No. And neither do you.
>>Deborah
>
On Apr 2, 10:46 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>From Wiki:
>"Emergency sales to Israel
>"According to the 1975 Second Sinai withdrawal
>document signed by the United States and Israel,
>in an emergency the U.S. is obligated to
>make oil available for sale to Israel for up to 5 years.[15]"
Congratulations on your uncharacteristic spate of honesty which impels
you to admit that you lied when you wrote that America committed to
keeping Israel's oil tanks "topped off". In fact, as you were no doubt
partly aware when you lied about the 1975 MOU, that agreement stated
that:
"If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for
domestic consumption is unavailable
for purchase in circumstances WHERE NO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS EXIST
ON THE ABILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PROCURE OIL to meet its normal requirements, the United
States Government will promptly make oil AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY
ISRAEL to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of
Israel."
We further agreed to make oil AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY ISRAEL "in
circumstances where' quantitative restrictions through embargo or
otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet
its normal requirements", and further taking into account"additional
expenditures for the import of oil to replace that which would have
ordinarily come from Abu Rudeis and Ras Sudar".
Of course, you preferred to make it sound as if we were giving it away
free in 1975, instead of offering it for sale on our terms.
It was renewed in 1979, with the proviso of annual meetings
"to review Israel's continuing oil requirement," and again in 1980. As
of today, Israel is now exporting 69,580 barrels of oil per day.
Not that any of the above facts matter to you, of course, but
congratulations again on your rare burst of honesty in admitting
yourself a liar.
Deborah
tdny
drahcir
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gymxY2zM8
wow, what a surprise, an irrelevant video in "reply" from our resident
cretin-bigot.