Israel doesn't use illegal weapons
RonB
imagination.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Brian Christgau
> Ignore the white phosphorous cloud over Gaza City -- it's just your
> imagination.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html
Careful now. You wouldn't want to be accused of being anti-semetic (or
a self-hating Jew if you're Jewish), would you?
Repeat after me: It's NOT genocide if the Israelis do it.
Cheers,
B
Paul Valois
> Ignore the white phosphorous cloud over Gaza City -- it's just your
> imagination.
There is no white phosphorous to ignore, except in the imagination of
Hamas shill...
The "Norwegian Doctor" who's peddling this load of crap, Mads Gilbert,
is a Hamas apologist who stated right after 9/11 that the terrorism of
that horrible day was justified. He's a Maoist kook who's sided with
the Palestinian Arabs for decades.
Great source of unbiased information you have in this guy.
wcmartell
major problem with all kinds of incidents like this is that people
jump in and defend their position... when it's probably wring and they
know it. If you want to wear the white hat, you've got to be the good
guy. If you are doing bad guy things, you can't wear the white hat.
You shouldn't *defend* the bad things you have done, or claim you
didn't do them - you should just 'fess to them.
On New Years Eve I was on a BART Train going from San Fran, through
Oakland, to the East Bay (where my parent's live). The train on the
tracks beside mine went south through Oakland... and was filled with
drunk, rowdy party goers - just like my train was - but police pulled
some guys off that train. The guys were sitting against the wall with
their hands behind them - complying - when the cops put one of these
guys face down on the floor to cuff... and one of the cops pulled out
his gun and shot the man dead. The guy is face down on the cement,
doesn't seem to be struggling in the tapes, and this cop just shot
him. Okay, now here's where the problem comes in - the cops stand by
their own. Even when they are wrong. That is a massive mistake.
Because in this case, they didn't interview the cop, they didn't
arrest him - and they have not arrested him to this day. Which has
caused a bit of confusion among the population of Oakland... which has
lead to some riots. So far, all we have seen are a half dozen cell
phone videos that seem to plainly show the police officer drawing his
gun and shooting this guy who is face down on the cement. There are
station videos we have not seen. Now, maybe the officer has a reason
for shooting this guy, or maybe it was an accident - and that is why
we have the court system. The police don't decide who is guilty and
who is innocent, they just arrest the people involved. So why didn't
they just arrest the officer and prevent the riots? Let the courts
decide?
Because they stand by their own, even when that guy is probably in the
wrong. They bend the rules for their own. That is wrong. If you want
to wear the white hat, you have to be in the right. If you are in the
wrong, don't claim you are in the right. In fact - if I were an
officer, I would want that officer arrested to protect the reputation
of the other officers - so they could continue to wear the white hats.
When a human rights organization says the USA is doing something that
puts the black hat on our country, I want that activity stopped and
the people involved to be charged. Wrong is wrong.
Here, a human rights organization again. If you want to be the good
guys, you have to act like the good guys. If you say you are the good
guys and then do bad things, you stop being credible.
- Bill
Paulo Joe Jingy
> RonB wrote:
> > Ignore the white phosphorous cloud over Gaza City -- it's just your
> > imagination.
>
> There is no white phosphorous to ignore, except in the imagination of
> Hamas shill...
Yeah, what you said.
Not to mention that damn, lying camera lense. (Must be a Hamas,
terrorist camera lense.)
If they installed a bullshit filter on your mouth, you'd be speechless.
Paul Valois
> Here, a human rights organization again. If you want to be the good
> guys, you have to act like the good guys. If you say you are the good
> guys and then do bad things, you stop being credible.
>
I saw the video. Unarmed guy shot in the back, cop claims he reached for
his tazer and pulled gun by accident.
This is not as silly as it sounds and I wonder how often it happens.
The tazer is the same size and shape as a gun and has a trigger. It's
inevitable that such an accident will happen, even if it didn't happen here.
I fight with cops all day long. Most of them are very dedicated, and
generally honest, but they stick together like glue. This is to be
expected given the nature and dangers of their jobs, but it certainly
isn't right, when the "thin blue line" is used to obfuscate justice.
In this case, however, there is no "human rights organization" accusing
Israel of using phosphorous weapons offensively. There is instead a
Maoist, anti-American, pro-terrorist kook doing so.
Michael
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34916 plus Human
Rights Watch plus the knowledge that they were used in Lebanon already
in 2006:
They could be wrong, the doctor in the first article stops short of
making an accusation. So we'll have to wait until Israel allows foreign
press to cover the area or the kids are airlifted to better facilities
outside Gaza to find out. I know some were sent to Europe over the weekend.
wcmartell
tazer" thing is what the police union has said. They never interviewed
the officer - and he has not been interviewed to date. No one knows
what he has to say. But all of the experts, including police from
other local forces, have said this is close to impossible as the tazer
is on the side opposite the firearm. It is set up that way to prevent
accidents like this. Again - that stuff is what happens in court,
which is why we have courts. You arrest the person and give them a
fair trial... but that has not been done.
Okay, you have some organization called Human Rights Watch, but you
also have the United Nations Human Rights Council... I've heard of
them.
- Bill
Paul Valois
> They could be wrong, the doctor in the first article stops short of
> making an accusation. So we'll have to wait until Israel allows foreign
> press to cover the area or the kids are airlifted to better facilities
> outside Gaza to find out. I know some were sent to Europe over the weekend.
>
Not here, we won't. No "waiting to see" anything in this forum. Israel
is guilty even though proven to be innocent in this little slice of Usenet.
Skipper
<nswr...@netscape.net> wrote:
How funny that the UN weighed in with "This must stop!" and said not a
damned thing during the last seven years of constant Hamas rocketry.
The REAL complaint from the loons is this: "You Jews are too efficient
at killing us when you get fed up and we're so damned lousy at killing
you. So what if we plan to destroy you? Not fair, not fair, not fair!"
Paul Valois
> Actually the police officer has said *nothing* - the "going for the
> tazer" thing is what the police union has said. They never interviewed
> the officer - and he has not been interviewed to date. No one knows
> what he has to say. But all of the experts, including police from
> other local forces, have said this is close to impossible as the tazer
> is on the side opposite the firearm. It is set up that way to prevent
> accidents like this. Again - that stuff is what happens in court,
> which is why we have courts. You arrest the person and give them a
> fair trial... but that has not been done.
There must be probable cause to believe that a crime occurred in order
to arrest anyone (Fourth Amendment). The video alone is insufficient
(intent is a necessary element of all crimes). There will need to be
corroborating testimony to establish intent, and taking this testimony
will probably require impaneling a grand jury. The process could take
months.
If the D.A. has the cop arrested or undertakes a search without probable
cause, any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest or illegal search
could be suppressed.
If there were enough other credible witnesses (besides the cops) then
the D.A. might be able to put together a case. Otherwise the cops will
stick together and nothing will happen.
>
> Okay, you have some organization called Human Rights Watch, but you
> also have the United Nations Human Rights Council... I've heard of
> them.
>
Yeah... Now there's a "neutral" organization for you. Every finding it
makes is against Israel. No kidding. Every single one!
"Darfur"?.. The Council heard if it. Same goes for Tibet, Belarus,
Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Syria, North Korea, etc., etc.
Israel is the ONLY country condemned by the Council (which has condemned
Israel more than a dozen times).
This Council is a joke.
Paul Valois
> Not to mention that damn, lying camera lense [sic]. (Must be a Hamas,
> terrorist camera lense. [sic])
LOL...
To the uneducated among us, it appears to be only a bright puff against
the blackened background of a low-resolution digital image, but to Pauly
here (aided no doubt by his Dick Tracy mass spectrometer with gas flame
analyzer) we have a clear case of insidious PHOSPHOROUS-SPEWING!
Most mere mortals would dismiss as bunk the claim from a lesser mand
that one can positively identify any particular element from a glance at
a two-dimensional, digitally edited image obtained from the internet
without attribution.
But we know better, for none other than Pauly Himself has entered the
fray to enlighten us with his unassailable Phosphor-Detecto Sense (r)
and his ironclad powers of deduction.
Another case closed in Paulyland!
Paulo Joe Jingy
> wcmartell wrote:
> > Actually the police officer has said *nothing* - the "going for the
> > tazer" thing is what the police union has said. They never interviewed
> > the officer - and he has not been interviewed to date. No one knows
> > what he has to say. But all of the experts, including police from
> > other local forces, have said this is close to impossible as the tazer
> > is on the side opposite the firearm. It is set up that way to prevent
> > accidents like this. Again - that stuff is what happens in court,
> > which is why we have courts. You arrest the person and give them a
> > fair trial... but that has not been done.
>
> There must be probable cause to believe that a crime occurred in order
> to arrest anyone (Fourth Amendment). The video alone is insufficient
> (intent is a necessary element of all crimes). There will need to be
> corroborating testimony to establish intent, and taking this testimony
> will probably require impaneling a grand jury. The process could take
> months.
Are you suggesting that if people videorecorded me shooting a man,
while he was lying face down in the cement that I wouldn't be
arrested? That the "process" could take months?
You really do have a bullshit problem, don't you?
mary...@rcn.com
> Though this will turn into a political & religious debate, I think a
> major problem with all kinds of incidents like this is that people
> jump in and defend their position... when it's probably wring and they
> know it. If you want to wear the white hat, you've got to be the good
> guy. If you are doing bad guy things, you can't wear the white hat.
> You shouldn't *defend* the bad things you have done, or claim you
> didn't do them - you should just 'fess to them.
You say this because you believe people are basically good. Well,
there are the other kind - the ones who don the white hats and say,
"We come in peace" and then the massacre. And people lie - this is
why the small boats at the marina are called Witness for the
Prosecution, and the big yachts are called And The Defense Rests.
No, it ain't fair.
>
> On New Years Eve I was on a BART Train going from San Fran, through
> Oakland, to the East Bay (where my parent's live). The train on the
> tracks beside mine went south through Oakland... and was filled with
> drunk, rowdy party goers - just like my train was - but police pulled
> some guys off that train. The guys were sitting against the wall with
> their hands behind them - complying - when the cops put one of these
> guys face down on the floor to cuff... and one of the cops pulled out
> his gun and shot the man dead. The guy is face down on the cement,
> doesn't seem to be struggling in the tapes, and this cop just shot
> him. Okay, now here's where the problem comes in - the cops stand by
> their own. Even when they are wrong. That is a massive mistake.
> Because in this case, they didn't interview the cop, they didn't
> arrest him - and they have not arrested him to this day. Which has
> caused a bit of confusion among the population of Oakland... which has
> lead to some riots. So far, all we have seen are a half dozen cell
> phone videos that seem to plainly show the police officer drawing his
> gun and shooting this guy who is face down on the cement. There are
> station videos we have not seen. Now, maybe the officer has a reason
> for shooting this guy, or maybe it was an accident - and that is why
> we have the court system. The police don't decide who is guilty and
> who is innocent, they just arrest the people involved. So why didn't
> they just arrest the officer and prevent the riots? Let the courts
> decide?
This is what they call, in technical terms, an Oh fuck situation.
They're gonna circle the wagons. It takes a lot to take down a cop
legally - I mean riots and Jesse Jackson - Jesus, what a thing to
see. But you know? Even the most dedicated cop is not a Rhodes
scholar. Cops are the men in blue, and that includes collar.
>
> Because they stand by their own, even when that guy is probably in the
> wrong. They bend the rules for their own. That is wrong. If you want
> to wear the white hat, you have to be in the right. If you are in the
> wrong, don't claim you are in the right. In fact - if I were an
> officer, I would want that officer arrested to protect the reputation
> of the other officers - so they could continue to wear the white hats.
> When a human rights organization says the USA is doing something that
> puts the black hat on our country, I want that activity stopped and
> the people involved to be charged. Wrong is wrong.
Except if they have guns, and you have what they want... somehow the
high moral ground can only be internalized if it will survive the
indignity of a thoroughly bad, out-of-control situation. Sometimes,
when you're powerless, all you can do is know that you'd do it
differently in the same situation. I find other people's bad
experiences to be educational, the way nightmares train you for
emergencies (I took a psych class all about it, now I'm an expert).
This is the chapter "What Not To Do." Read it, there will be a quiz.
With bullets.
>
> Here, a human rights organization again. If you want to be the good
> guys, you have to act like the good guys. If you say you are the good
> guys and then do bad things, you stop being credible.
>
> - Bill
"We come in peace. Here are lovely blankets." How long before most
Native Americans were dead of smallpox?
Paul Valois
> Are you suggesting that if people videorecorded me shooting a man,
> while he was lying face down in the cement that I wouldn't be
> arrested? That the "process" could take months?
Not if you were a cop, and the other person was struggling, and it
appeared as though there might be a legitimate defense. I'm not saying
it's fair. I'm just saying that's the way it is.
Ask any prosecutor about trying a cop on any criminal charge. First of
all, in nearly every case the local prosecutor will need to recuse
himself. Then, after another prosecutor is appointed (who is at a
complete disadvantage, being outside the jurisdiction) all the cop has
to do is get a jury, and the cop walks, more than ninety percent of the
time. Fifteen people will testify tearfully how the cop has done a
great job, worked nights, got shot at, put his life on the line, etc.,
etc. The cop only needs to persuade one person out of twelve that he
"didn't mean to do it" and it's over. On top of all this, the cop will
have millions of dollars available if necessary for his defense.
Finally, frankly, (and I don't know about this particular case) it is
often true that the victim is no choir boy.
Combine all these factors and you can see how hard it is for a
prosecutor to put together a case against a cop.
>
> You really do have a bullshit problem, don't you?
Indeed I appear to have one every single time you post here. What a
curious coincidence!
mary...@rcn.com
Where are we, down your personal rabbit-hole? This note meant nothing
but a toothpick poking. Make a debate. Insults are okay -
apparently, but I hate them - but you have to hang some kind of story
onto them.
Paul Valois
Just teasing, now. It's not my thread. Nobody's hurt. It'll be OK.
RonB
> The REAL complaint from the loons is this: "You Jews are too efficient
> at killing...
...civilians. Whenever it comes down to face to face warfare on the ground,
the Israelis find a way to declare victory and get the hell out. Too bad
Bush wasn't that smart in Iraq.
Remysun
> Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that if people videorecorded me shooting a man,
> > while he was lying face down in the cement that I wouldn't be
> > arrested? That the "process" could take months?
> Not if you were a cop, and the other person was struggling, and it
> appeared as though there might be a legitimate defense. I'm not saying
> it's fair. I'm just saying that's the way it is.
A little bit of name calling, but the rest of the post was reasoned
and fair. Very good post, Paul.
I guess I had the fortune to be taking a high school criminal law
class during the Rodney King trial, taught by an ex-cop to a class
with a significant African-American demographic.
He told us exactly how the cops got off the first time, how the video
was broken down frame by frame and magnified-- this cop struck here,
that cop struck there, that was a miss, that was a miss, and that was
a miss....
If the blows that landed were not beyond more than enough to subdue
the suspect, it's not excessive force. If the misses were "warning
shots", they appear violent, but they don't count.
One by one, most of those violent blows were explained away, and what
remained was the prosecution's case. And it wasn't enough. All of a
sudden, there is a reasonable doubt in the midst of all that previous
obviousness. And that's how the American justice system works.
Paul Valois
amazing that twelve lay people will get together and reach a decision
that is just - but that is exactly what has happened every single time
I've taken cases to a jury (Virginia penalizes defendants who choose
juries, so most criminal cases are bench trials).
The American justice system is by no means perfect, but it is the best
in the world, in my opinion.
However, I think juries get it wrong when:
1. They don't get the evidence they need. This is what happened with OJ
- he was able to pay millions to keep DNA evidence out. The opposite
happens with indigent defendants- the prosecution has access to experts
and the defense has nothing.
2. Cops or ministers are defendants. Most laymen are protective of
police officers and ministers. Any particular people who've had
negative experiences with the police get removed from the jury during
voir dire. This leaves a pool of people who love the cops.
Furthermore, since in the bulk of these cases, the crime alleged
occurred in the course of the profession, the defense will almost always
be able to introduce employment related character evidence that would
otherwise be inadmissible.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that if people videorecorded me shooting a man,
> > while he was lying face down in the cement that I wouldn't be
> > arrested? That the "process" could take months?
>
> Not if you were a cop, and the other person was struggling, and it
> appeared as though there might be a legitimate defense. I'm not saying
> it's fair. I'm just saying that's the way it is.
Fair enough. But he wasn't struggling when the cop shot him. And
suspiciously the two other cops who had been struggling with him
earlier, backed off, right before this cop shot him. This shooting
cop came out of left field, walked up him and shot him. I've seen two
different angles now and there's no way to put a pretty face on it.
And then this cop immediately resigned, within a couple hours got a
lawyer and refused to talk to investigators, while invoking his fifth
amendment rights.
So what would it take to get a cop arrested, immediately, like any
other non-police citizen?
Remysun
> 2. Cops or ministers are defendants. Most laymen are protective of
> police officers and ministers. Any particular people who've had
> negative experiences with the police get removed from the jury during
> voir dire. This leaves a pool of people who love the cops.
> Furthermore, since in the bulk of these cases, the crime alleged
> occurred in the course of the profession, the defense will almost always
> be able to introduce employment related character evidence that would
> otherwise be inadmissible.
I would disagree with ministers. Maybe once upon a time, they were
held above the law, but I think between televangelists scandals, the
Catholic Church's molestation problem, and the general trend towards
apathy, we can easily find fallibility that we were previously blind
to.
Yes, the character reference goes a long way towards exonerating a
cop, and a minister probably has a chance in a small community, but
it's nowhere near what it used to be.
> However, I think juries get it wrong when:
> 1. They don't get the evidence they need.
And that's one grudge I think prosecutors hold against this newsgroup.
Forensic dramas are what Lois wanted to know about, that modern bit of
writing that has changed the world. The audience has become so
accustomed to overwhelming forensic evidence that they expect it in
each and any case.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Skipper wrote:
> > The REAL complaint from the loons is this: "You Jews are too efficient
> > at killing...
>
> ...civilians. Whenever it comes down to face to face warfare on the ground,
> the Israelis find a way to declare victory and get the hell out. Too bad
> Bush wasn't that smart in Iraq.
RonB, what are you thinking -- Iraq was a HUGE success! That's why
Iran calls the shots there now. You're just not paying attention.
And if Skippy worships efficient killers of civilians, he must love
Hitler.
900 dead Palestinians since the end of December and Israel "claims"
300 were Hamas militants. Meaning... they admit 600 were not Hamas
militants.
Interesting. Didn't the Bush administration screech that the 15-20
civilians the Russian Army supposedly killed last summer were "a
disproportionate response"? Hmm... 15-20 is disproportionate. 600
(and counting) is just hunky dory.
Strange math, indeed, isn't it Skippy?
Paul Valois
> I would disagree with ministers. Maybe once upon a time, they were
> held above the law, but I think between televangelists scandals, the
> Catholic Church's molestation problem, and the general trend towards
> apathy, we can easily find fallibility that we were previously blind
> to.
>
It depends on the venue. Urban area - you are right - sometimes. Here
in beautiful Lynchburg, Virginia, home of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell,
I'm right, 9 times out of 10.
The reason you are not always right, even in cosmopolitan jurisdictions,
is jury selection. Anyone with strong anti-religious feelings can be
identified and struck from the jury by the defense. On the other hand,
any elected prosecutor who openly strikes jurors because of positive
religious beliefs is dancing blindfolded through a political minefield.
wcmartell
> Not here, we won't. No "waiting to see" anything in this forum. Israel
> is guilty even though proven to be innocent in this little slice of Usenet.
Are they guilty? I don't know - let's investigate. Until we have
investigated, they are neither guilty nor innocent.
Problem is - you have them innocent when there is evidence of a
crime.
And, are you saying that I can go shoot somebody, and if there is no
evidence of intent (like if I just shoot some stranger) that I can not
be arrested?
- Bill
Paul Valois
> On Jan 13, 3:57 pm, Paul Valois <mval...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
>
>> Not here, we won't. No "waiting to see" anything in this forum. Israel
>> is guilty even though proven to be innocent in this little slice of Usenet.
>
> Are they guilty? I don't know - let's investigate. Until we have
> investigated, they are neither guilty nor innocent.
>
> Problem is - you have them innocent when there is evidence of a
> crime.
There is no evidence of anything.
Some freaky-deaky Maoist doctor (he's not even just a run-of-the-mill
Red Marxist) who has aligned himself with the Palestinian Arabs for
years and who has publicly stated that the 9/11 attacks were justified
(what doctor on Earth would justify slaughter of innocent civilians for
political or religious purposes?) makes a ridiculous claim that not only
hasn't been substantiated by anyone, but has also been categorically and
officially denied. And all of a sudden we have "evidence"?
I don't think so.
Not unless we're in "The Crucible".
Steven J. Weller
> And, are you saying that I can go shoot somebody, and if there is no
> evidence of intent (like if I just shoot some stranger) that I can not
> be arrested?
Trouble is, you're a screenwriter rather than a cop. Your job doesn't
include, as a part of its most basic job description, carrying a gun
and making the decision of whether or not to use deadly force in a
crisis situation.
Even if you have a CCW tag, you don't get to shoot anybody. If you do
shoot someone, the automatic assumption is that you're wrong and
you've committed a crime. A cop, like a soldier, might have just been
doing his job, but you have to show that your otherwise-criminal act
was actually somehow justified.
That much said, I personally feel that a lot of this was all
determined in a pre-video age, and needs to be revisited. Rodney King
was beaten nearly to death by a group of armed thugs who immediately
lied about having done it in the first place, and who would never have
been so much as questioned had not a private citizen videotaped their
crime. The dead guy on the BART? Failing the video, that cop - like
legions before him - would have likely insisted that the guy was
struggling, or reaching for his waistband, or whatever, and so the
shooting was not only justified but entirely necessary. We need to
start looking at these videos with a little less legalese and a little
more common sense.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Schlockhack
years was an illegal weapon and a war crime. Each and every one,
without exception. Each and every one. Without exception.
Schlockhack
> the Israelis find a way to declare victory and get the hell out.
Huh. The things I miss by only paying attention to bullshit neocon
news sources. According to you, the Israeli Army must have made just
a brief foray into Gaza, turned right around about two weeks ago, and
declared victory. And here I had no idea! Imagine that!
RonB
Yep, you certainly do miss a lot by relying on FOX news and the other
Neo-Con Bullshit sources. Let's see what happens now, now that Israel
either has to go into Gaza City or go home.
Is it my imagination, or have I been hearing "the mission is about over" by
the Israeli government. Kind of like the "mission was over" when they left
Lebanon just when they had to either fight on the ground or go home. At
least two Israeli generals lost their jobs over that "great victory." Let's
see what happens when this one is done.
RonB
I'll accept that. But Israel has the modern weaponry and the means to select
their targets -- they don't have to terrorize those trapped in Gaza City.
Schlockhack
their targets -- they don't have to terrorize those trapped in Gaza
City.
the problem with that statement is, Israel's targets -- the Hamas top
command -- has their war room in the basement of Gaza's biggest
hospital. According to several sources, including a report in
Friday's NY Times by an Arab reporter dispatching from Gaza.
Schlockhack
Lebanon just when they had to either fight on the ground or go home.
At
least two Israeli generals lost their jobs over that "great victory."
Let's
see what happens when this one is done.
Israel never did declare themselves the winners. Everyone in Israel
knows the second Lebanon war was half-assed. It's actually Hizbollah
who declared themselves the victors, despite the fact that Israel
decimated them numerically and destroyed most of their missiles. And
would have defeated them totally in another few weeks if allowed to.
Israel learned from the that war that world opinion will call them
genocidal war criminals no matter what, so f**ck world opinion and
stay in until they achieve a decisive victory.
In Lebanon in 2006 -- another unprovoked military attack across
international borders by a proxy army supplied and controlled by Iran
-- the IDF sacrificed many of its soldiers in order to keep the
civilian casualties as low as possible. By warning the other side
which town was going to be hit next. Which gave civilians time to
flee, but also gave Hizbollah time to set up ambushes.
Hizbollah knew that all they had to do was get enough dead little
girls and the world would save them from military defeat. Ergo, the
Qana affair. They moved children into an abandoned building in the
dead of night, knowing that Israel had it marked down as unoccupied.
Then they fired off missiles from it, knowing Israel would fire back.
They got what they needed.
Well not quite. They had to convince the anti-Israel world press that
the IDF was targeting ambulances. So they showed photos of an
ambulance struck by an Israeli missile, killing the driver and
passenger. Only problem was, no one died, the hole in the top was
obviously just a rusted out hole, and there was no sign of the
hundreds of tiny holes that would have been made by a missile. But
the mainstream media fell for it, there were demonstrations all over
Europe with the Star of David superimposed over a swastika, and Israel
was forced to withdraw and let Hizbollah survive. In exchange for
guarantees from the Alzheimer-ridden quadriplegic deaf and blind UN
forces, which to date have not prevented Iran from shipping one
missile to Hizbollah.
Hamas was counting on this happening again -- provoke Israel into a
counter-attack, trot out the dead girls, and start all over again from
square one. This time, Israel refuses to play that crooked game.
wcmartell
> There is no evidence of anything.
>
> Some freaky-deaky Maoist doctor (he's not even just a run-of-the-mill
Okay, is this doctor with Human Rights Watch or the UN? Because there
are two different groups condemning Israel, here.
Look, when the UN was against the USA because we were, you know,
torturing people and holding them without trial, I thought we were
wrong and were wearing the black hats and really needed to do
something about that. We were the bad guys... or, at least, we
appeared to be the bad guys. We were not being cooperative in clearing
up what the hell we were doing, either. That's kinda fishy. When you
are wearing the black hats - when you are the bad guys - you need to
do something to fix that. I don't think as long as the US government
is doing bad things, they have any right to point fingers at anyone
else. Something about throwing the first stone in there... along with
just general hypocripsy. Time to police ourselves and jail the people
who are breaking the laws and get the white hats back on.
So, here we have the UN Human Rights Council condemning Israel - maybe
it's time for them to look at the color of their hats? Are they in the
right or not?
- Bill
RonB
> So, here we have the UN Human Rights Council condemning Israel - maybe
> it's time for them to look at the color of their hats? Are they in the
> right or not?
And, just as important, is what they are doing going to help, or hinder the
peace "process" (what there is left of it)?
Michael
way. After a largely satisfactory ceasefire for Israel (it must have
been, as Israel suggested continuing it) during which the number of
cross-border incidents could only be described as skirmishes, Hamas
offered to extend the ceasefire to the West Bank on December 23 - but
only if Israel complied to Hamas' essential demand: that Israel allow
traffic through the border points, which had not been happening to any
significant degree. This would seem like a more than promising basis on
which to start a broader peace process, if not the most significant
overture from Hamas since it came to power in 2006. Israel's answer came
on December 27.
The basic claim, that Hamas broke the ceasefire, is also arguable as the
IDF entered Gaza and killed 8 people in November (the "ticking tunnel"
incident. By way of comparison, two IDF soldiers were captured in the
Lebanese border incident). The sad truth is that the IDF shoud not be in
Gaza for the moment. It was avoidable.
The lesson they learnt in Lebanon is to use a scorched earth policy of
taking zero risk with their own personnel and clearing everything in
their path. As this is a highly-populated urban zone, that's why we are
seeing so many civilian casualties.
wra...@aol.com
> wcmartell wrote:
> > Actually the police officer has said *nothing* - the "going for the
> > tazer" thing is what the police union has said. They never interviewed
> > the officer - and he has not been interviewed to date. No one knows
> > what he has to say. But all of the experts, including police from
> > other local forces, have said this is close to impossible as the tazer
> > is on the side opposite the firearm. It is set up that way to prevent
> > accidents like this. Again - that stuff is what happens in court,
> > which is why we have courts. You arrest the person and give them a
> > fair trial... but that has not been done.
>
> There must be probable cause to believe that a crime occurred in order
> to arrest anyone (Fourth Amendment). �The video alone is insufficient
> (intent is a necessary element of all crimes). �There will need to be
> corroborating testimony to establish intent, and taking this testimony
> will probably require impaneling a grand jury. The process could take
> months.
>
> cause, any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest or illegal search
> could be suppressed.
>
> If there were enough other credible witnesses (besides the cops) then
> the D.A. might be able to put together a case. �Otherwise the cops will
> stick together and nothing will happen.
>
>
>
Hey Paul -- You're wrong again: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/
"The former police officer accused of shooting an unarmed man at a
northern California commuter train station was arrested Tuesday in
Nevada, authorities said. Former Bay Area Rapid Transit officer
Johannes Mehserle was arrested on a fugitive warrant charging
homicide."
And this in what you claim to be your area of expertise, the law.
wcmartell
> northern California commuter train station was arrested Tuesday in
> Nevada,
When I read this, I wondered what the hell he was doing out if state?
This could have created an extradition issue (it didn't, but the guy
could have fought like crazy).
I still do not understand why if *I* shot a guy in the back I would be
arrested and the court would figure out whether the shooting was
justified or not... and all of that might happen at the arraignment
hearing, where they might decide not to charge me. But that is a
decision of the courts... not the police. I would think, to avoid
charges of selective prosecution, the police need to arrest everyone
who shoots somebody... even other policemen. In fact, I would think
they'd want to arrest any police officers right away to maintain their
credibility.
Right now there is a big protest in Beverly Hills against Israel's
aggression in Gaza... by Jewish people! Just caught it on the news.
Kind of weird.
Anyone can be wrong (I have apologized to Skip on these boards), and
the sooner you consider that you may be wrong the sooner you can try
to set things right. Our country has been wrong - and the UN and other
human rights organizations have been on our case for years - I hope we
get those things resolved so that we can take off those black hats and
I can be proud to be an American again.
- Bill
Paul Valois
>>
> Hey Paul -- You're wrong again: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/
>
> "The former police officer accused of shooting an unarmed man at a
> northern California commuter train station was arrested Tuesday in
> Nevada, authorities said. Former Bay Area Rapid Transit officer
> Johannes Mehserle was arrested on a fugitive warrant charging
> homicide."
>
> And this in what you claim to be your area of expertise, the law.
>
What exactly was I "wrong" about, here? I never said that the cop
wouldn't be arrested. I merely pointed out the difficulties in
prosecuting cops.
I'm surprised, but quite happy, to see this cop arrested on a warrant.
This means that it is likely that there are good eyewitnesses.
You need to stop with the disparaging remarks about my expertise.
Paul Valois
> I still do not understand why if *I* shot a guy in the back I would be
> arrested and the court would figure out whether the shooting was
> justified or not... and all of that might happen at the arraignment
> hearing, where they might decide not to charge me. But that is a
> decision of the courts... not the police. I would think, to avoid
> charges of selective prosecution, the police need to arrest everyone
> who shoots somebody... even other policemen. In fact, I would think
> they'd want to arrest any police officers right away to maintain their
> credibility.
The problem with this idea is the Fourth Amendment. It prevents
"arresting everyone" and demands "selective prosecution" based on
probable cause. An unfounded arrest can taint a whole case.
In the situation you describe - shooting a guy in the back - you might
or might not be arrested, depending on the circumstances. For example,
if you had three witnesses testify to the magistrate that the guy you
shot was turning to shoot someone else when he was killed, the police
would have no probable cause to believe that any crime had occurred
(defense of another is an excuse).
Not every shooting death is a crime. You can't just arrest people
simply because a fatal shooting has occurred. I have a case right now
where a woman was shot in the head - my client says it was suicide, the
police believe my client killed the woman. The police can't arrest my
client without evidence. Don't get me wrong... I fight with cops all
day, every day. I'd like nothing better than to mess with them.
wra...@aol.com
You said it would be months before this cop could be arrested. You
said a grand jury would have to indict him. You went on and on about
the impossibility of arresting and prosecuting a cop, apparently
without knowing anything about the situation, the Bart police, the
area, or the crime. You spouted off in complete ignorance, just as you
do about everything, including the motion picture industry.
And I will stop disparaging your expertise when you demonstrate some.
wra...@aol.com
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Paulo Joe Jingy
> (dbl...@gmail.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > Fair enough. �But he wasn't struggling when the cop shot him. �And
> > suspiciously the two other cops who had been struggling with him
> > earlier, backed off, right before this cop shot him. �This shooting
> > cop came out of left field, walked up him and shot him. �I've seen two
> > different angles now and there's no way to put a pretty face on it.
>
> ground, one on his back, one on his head, the kid was cuffed. The cop
> with the funny name stepped up and shot the kid and the other 2 cops
> JUMPED away in shock and surprise.
> --
> <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
> � The Peripatetic Samurai Robot
> <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
Which, of course, is known to anyone who's read anything about this
incident. These are the facts, and I haven't seen them disputed
anywhere.
Except by Paul, who as always argues out of complete ignorance.
Paul Valois
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Paulo Joe Jingy
> (dbl...@gmail.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
>> suspiciously the two other cops who had been struggling with him
>> earlier, backed off, right before this cop shot him. This shooting
>> cop came out of left field, walked up him and shot him. I've seen two
>> different angles now and there's no way to put a pretty face on it.
>>
>>
> ground, one on his back, one on his head, the kid was cuffed. The cop
> with the funny name stepped up and shot the kid and the other 2 cops
> JUMPED away in shock and surprise.
I had a similar case. Former client killed by cops at a Sheetz store in
South Boston (VA). In this case, a team of undercover cops saw him buy
pot and then rushed him in the parking lot. He didn't recognize them as
cops, got scared when he saw their guns, and tried to run over one of
them in self-defense. Cops shot and killed him. Cops completely
exonerated (of course).
This case sounds more egregious, though the video I saw didn't go all
the way to the actual shooting. You have to wonder why the cop would
shoot him.
Schlockhack
thought he'd just get away with it.
Paul Valois
> You said it would be months before this cop could be arrested. You
> said a grand jury would have to indict him.
Here's what I actually said:
"There will need to be corroborating testimony to establish intent, and
taking this testimony will *probably* require impaneling a grand jury.
The process *could* take months.
If the D.A. has the cop arrested or undertakes a search without probable
cause, any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest or illegal search
could be suppressed.
If there were enough other credible witnesses (besides the cops) then
the D.A. *might be able to put together a case*. Otherwise the cops
will stick together and nothing will happen."
"Could" becomes "would", and "probably" becomes "have to" in Rabkinland...
Does the truth mean anything to this guy?
Remysun
> Which, of course, is known to anyone who's read anything about this
> incident. These are the facts, and I haven't seen them disputed
> anywhere.
> Except by Paul, who as always argues out of complete ignorance.
I really think Paul's been in his expertise on this one. Everything
he's said is based on Constitutional rights: you have to make a good
arrest, you have to have evidence. It will be a waste of time if they
can raise a reasonable doubt. The video was the kicker for probable
cause in this case, but as we've seen with Rodney King, sometimes it
isn't enough.
And the running out of town just looks bad. Teach said that the cop
would be taken off the beat, get some counseling, while they
straightened it all out. You sure wouldn't make him go back out into
the street for an easy revenge killing.
And as Paul says, the cop's rep counts for a lot. They'll stick
together. Serpico tried to play good cop and got shot in the face.
They watch his back, not stab him in it, and they know someone will
return the favor when they need it.
Paul basically said it wouldn't be easy. It still won't be.
Remysun
> I just can't believe that in this day and age, the asshole killer cop
> thought he'd just get away with it.
Everybody has at least a fleeting thought. The crazy thing is when
they chase after it.
Bill Martell,
You actually witnessed this New Year's Eve?
Not trying to capitalize on a tragedy, but if there's a MotW or more
than that, somebody better give you a call.
Remysun
car was probably emphasized as a result, but the real life Hmong had
to deal with a shooting cop. The family called 911 cause there son was
having a mental episode, and they were horrified when the cops shot
him.
Poor folks. In rural Southeast Asia, the local police are often an
intermediary, but in Detroit? They should have known that they would
have used lethal force if they thought he was going to harm anyone. If
you call 911, you better not be f*cking around.
Add the language barrier to the confusion and POW!
And it doesn't help community relations either. I wonder if there was
any mention of it in the film?
RonB
> I really think Paul's been in his expertise on this one. Everything
> he's said is based on Constitutional rights: you have to make a good
> arrest, you have to have evidence. It will be a waste of time if they
> can raise a reasonable doubt. The video was the kicker for probable
> cause in this case, but as we've seen with Rodney King, sometimes it
> isn't enough.
What a load of horse shit.
Let's say I, not a cop, did this. The facts. A man is shot in the back while
on the ground and handcuffed. At least four people film the incident, which
shows "me" shooting the guy. They know I pulled the trigger. Do you really
think they would be sitting around and trying to figure out all the ins and
outs of all the possible ways I might get off on this crime -- if it were
me and not the cop who did these things? No, they have the dead body and
the videos, this would be enough evidence to get me arrested and held for
questioning. While I was in jail they would interview witnesses to get more
evidence. Before I would have a chance to leave the jail I would be
formally charged for murder. That's how it works in every case where there
are multiple witnesses to a murder like this. To pretend everything
suddenly is "fuzzy" just because a cop is the man who pulled the trigger --
is just pure bullshit.
I can understand the misguided attempt to protect "your own," but to pretend
that this is the reasonable and prudent thing to do is ludicrous. This
would not be the outcome if anyone but a cop (or a celebrity, or a
politician) did the same thing.
Paul Valois
>
> What a load of horse shit.
>
> Let's say I, not a cop, did this. The facts. A man is shot in the back while
> on the ground and handcuffed. At least four people film the incident, which
> shows "me" shooting the guy. They know I pulled the trigger. Do you really
> think they would be sitting around and trying to figure out all the ins and
> outs of all the possible ways I might get off on this crime -- if it were
> me and not the cop who did these things?
Dude, have you been paying attention? We're AGREEING WITH YOU.
Take a damned chill pill.
No, they have the dead body and
> the videos, this would be enough evidence to get me arrested and held for
> questioning. While I was in jail they would interview witnesses to get more
> evidence. Before I would have a chance to leave the jail I would be
> formally charged for murder. That's how it works in every case where there
> are multiple witnesses to a murder like this. To pretend everything
> suddenly is "fuzzy" just because a cop is the man who pulled the trigger --
> is just pure bullshit.
It's FUZZY because cops get away with crap. It isn't right. I hate it.
I fight it all the time. But that's how it is!
>
> I can understand the misguided attempt to protect "your own," but to pretend
> that this is the reasonable and prudent thing to do is ludicrous. This
> would not be the outcome if anyone but a cop (or a celebrity, or a
> politician) did the same thing.
You don't understand the problems involved in prosecution. I do.
Usually I'm the one making the problems. It is indeed often ludicrous
to see a cop skate. But it happens all the time. I'm happy to see this
particular cop charged. I just hope the prosecutor was careful.
Skipper
<mva...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
Now, now, Bill's written a lot of fictional stuff about cops. You've
actually worked in the legal system for years. Doesn't that balance
out? LOL
RonB
> Now, now, Bill's written a lot of fictional stuff about cops. You've
> actually worked in the legal system for years. Doesn't that balance
> out? LOL
Ever hear of *research,* Skip? Oh wait a minute, it's Bill who writes and
SELLS fiction, isn't it?
wra...@aol.com
> In article <gkm1e9$j3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Valois
>
>
>
>
>
> <mval...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And yet... in this case, I know what I'm talking about, and "Paul
Valois" doesn't. He showed up here and started insisting he knew how
the entertainment industry worked -- or should work -- despite his
complete lack of knowledge. And I'm okay with that. Because that's one
of the main hobbies of everyone in this country. But he claims to be a
lawyer, and he has no idea of the history of the Bush administration's
legal games, and he claims to be a defense attorney weighing in on
this case, and he doesn't know the first thing about it. I'm getting a
little tired of his complete ignorance of anything.
Of course, with Skip, I'm used to it.
Steven J. Weller
> Let's say I, not a cop, did this.
Again, you're ignoring the single most important fact - it wasn't you,
it was a cop. Your job - no matter what that job is - doesn't involve
shooting and killing people. In our country that's just cops (of
various descriptions) and soldiers, so unless you're one of those,
it's always going to be a crime for you to shoot someone. You might
be able to show justification later, but that burden's on you, while
someone has to prove that the cop/soldier was acting in the wrong.
> I can understand the misguided attempt to protect "your own," but to pretend
> that this is the reasonable and prudent thing to do is ludicrous. This
> would not be the outcome if anyone but a cop (or a celebrity, or a
> politician) did the same thing.
The cop has to be able to do his or her job without fear of
prosecution; same with the soldier. We give them guns and training
and put them into situations where they're going to have to make the
decision to use them, or not, and a part of that decision can't be the
consideration that even if he or she is doing the right thing for the
situation, it's going to result in arrest and a trial and the need to
defend himself or herself. You don't want a cop pointing a gun at
someone, perhaps trying to save your life, and asking if pulling the
trigger is worth his or her career and freedom. So, we err to the
other side, and assume - unless and until we can prove otherwise -
that the cop or the soldier was just doing the job.
In a case like the BART officer's actions, where it was all caught on
tape, it seems like the truth is pretty easy to get to. Seemed that
way in the Rodney King case, too, but the defense was already
operating in a post-video mindset, and prosecution wasn't. The
defense successfully argued that we weren't seeing what we thought we
were seeing, and I imagine that the defense will try to go that way
again. With a little luck, it won't work this time around.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Skipper
Well Rabid, he is a defense attorney and you're not. You believe you're
an expert on all things political, but you're just a rabidly prejudiced
liberal knucklehead. You're literally incapable of seeing the truth
about the Bush administration, as are most on this group. Alberto
Gonzalez? Not so great. Not as incompetent as Janet Reno, however.
No attacks on American soil. Won in Afghanistan when no one could
before. Turned Iraq around.
And when the jug-eared clodhopper, as Ann Coulter calls him, learned
about the REAL threats to America instead of the baritone bullshit he
spouted to the American people, he went gulp and left the Sec. of
Defense in place. He's gulping about a lot of things. I'm glad he got
elected - it'll get us past the "black man can't be elected" idea - but
he's going to be astonishingly incompetent.
There are people who see the real picture about the face of evil,
Rabid, who have been there or know people who have been there, who are
there, facing evil down, like a friend of mine who just came back from
Afghanistan.
And then there are people who have been swallowing their own bullshit
and that of the socialist loons for so long - like you - who are beyond
psychotic in the realities of the world.
Paul Valois
-
>
> And yet... in this case, I know what I'm talking about, and "Paul
> Valois" doesn't. He showed up here and started insisting he knew how
> the entertainment industry worked -- or should work -- despite his
> complete lack of knowledge. And I'm okay with that.
It shows.
But he claims to be a
> lawyer, and he has no idea of the history of the Bush administration's
> legal games, and he claims to be a defense attorney weighing in on
> this case, and he doesn't know the first thing about it. I'm getting a
> little tired of his complete ignorance of anything.
And I'm getting more than a little tired of being slandered by a
pompous, arrogant TV writer who decides to maliciously injure me by
amateurish falsification.
You need to quit this crap now. Give it a rest. You are at the point
where anybody looking at your nonsense will realize that you are
denigrating my ability to represent my clients, by falsely accusing me
of statements I never made. And your malice is clear and silly - you
choose to defame just because your political sensitivities are offended.
You've made misrepresentations of my statements, deliberately. You've
impugned my integrity, deliberately. You've libeled me several times,
deliberately.
I've pointed out your misrepresentations several times and yet you
persist. You have not corrected your errors.
I'm not going to put up with this injurious libel much longer.
Give it a rest.
Remysun
> What a load of horse shit.
Of course it is. That's why there were riots, but that's how these
things happen. And the one thing I don't remember Paul explicitly
mentioning is that double jeopardy is the reason the prosecutors only
get one shot.
You can say the Feds will have charges if California screws up again,
but it's not just a mere do-over. Those charges will have to be
fundamentally different from what was already tried in state court.
That's what double jeopardy is about, and I can't find the email that
has the best legal book about the concept right now.
But I've done enough legal research to see what happens when a well
meaning lawyer makes a mistake like interviewing the witnesses
together just to save time. The result is just as bad as Mark Furman
planting evidence.
Mistakes are probably the most powerful thing in the legal system.
They are bad news for whoever makes them.
Skipper
<mva...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
Paul, he's never going to correct his errors. He's incapable of ever
admitting any error on his part. I've seen that for years. As political
opiners go, he foams at the mouth with false certainty. I've laughed at
it for years. He never states anything that isn't a patent party line
lie. And the minute he thinks you're not a liberal loon like himself,
he starts snarling. He thinks he's beyond reproach, smarter than you,
and that you're a lesser life form because you're not a Kool-Aid
drinker like himself - and he thinks that Kool-Aid is the sweet nectar
of the godlike genius he considers himself to be.
And that's Hollywood, to a large degree. They can't handle the truth.
Paul Valois
That's all well and good, but more than 90 percent of my practice is
devoted to court-appointed indigent defense, by choice. And I have a
hard time scratching together a living doing that. My reputation is the
only capital I have.
And this guy, who's obviously enjoyed success in his life, takes it upon
himself to malign my ability to represent my clients, just because I
don't espouse his political views?
Screw that.
I'm not going to stand by and let this guy interfere with my means of
feeding my kids, no matter how well he writes.
Remysun
> That's all well and good, but more than 90 percent of my practice is
> devoted to court-appointed indigent defense, by choice. And I have a
> hard time scratching together a living doing that. My reputation is the
> only capital I have.
Is Virginia (I think you said it was) different from Michigan in
regards to CAID? It's only automatic for felonies in Michigan, and
someone(a lawyer I met at the other kind of bar) advised me to ask for
a consult in misdemeanor proceedings, although I'm not sure if that
results in an added court fee or not.
All I know is, don't scratch your kids. There's a ton of people from
medical workers to daycare and teachers who can make your life
miserable, because any court proceeding that can't be quashed or
dismissed can be hell for the uninitiated.
You think a traffic ticket is bad...?
Paul Valois
>
> All I know is, don't scratch your kids.
Can I at least still kick them once in while? ;-)
mary...@rcn.com
This is a very important thing for parents to know. You take the kid
to the ER with a hurt, and YOU are the immediate suspect. My boys
were rambunctious, and we had some trips to the ER, and after a bit I
realized I was being grilled. After that, when the doctor looked at
me and said, "What happened?" I looked at the boy sitting on the exam
table and said, "Tell him what happened." No way is a three or four y-
o gonna lie.
And stuff happens. I sent them to a day camp one summer, few hours a
day. One activity, ice rink. Jack doesn't want to skate. I say, Oh
try. I get a call, he skated first time, fell, concussion. Then,
broken collar bone when a neighbor dog jumped him. Other one jammed
his fingers several times at basketball practice - the Year of
Orthopedics. And I got all the glares. Then again, my dearly
departed was legally required to report suspected abuse - one of his
patients was a 15-y-o girl with baaad migraines, and her mother said,
"They're just headaches, I'm not giving her meds." Push came to
shove, he made the threat, she finally caved when it dawned on her
that this was serious - she could lose her daughter into foster care.
Truth...@nospam.net
Stop telling us what you do skippy. You also need to stop pretending
that you are right wing kook.
In <gkmkk4$8a2$1...@reader1.panix.com>, on 01/15/2009
wra...@aol.com
> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <gkmjne$5f...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Valois
> > <mval...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calm down, Paul. No discussion on a screenwriting message board is
going to interfere with your means of feeding your kids. I don't have
the power to do that to anyone in the entertainment industry, let
alone to a defense attorney working God knows where.
And I have not maligned your ability to represent your clients. And
frankly, no one here knows who you are, where you are, or whether you
are what you say you are. I respond only to what you post here. For
all I know, you're a lovely man with a brilliant practice. Your
postings here, however, have been consistently arrogant, as you have
insisted on explaining exactly how the entertainment industry should
be run, despite knowing nothing about it. It's your posts I'm
responding to, not your life, your family, or your work.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But if you come onto a message board
and assume authority on every subject, people are going to respond. If
you're going to take it all this seriously, you might want to consider
whether this kind of communication is for you.
Skipper
<mva...@vbclegal.com> wrote:
He doesn't exactly write that well. He writes TV competent. Just my
opinion, others may differ. And that might explain his constant need to
assert his ego via pack politicism and projection of his perception of
the behavior of others.
Skipper
wrote:
> Stop telling us what you do skippy. You also need to stop pretending
> that you are right wing kook.
>
How much crack went through your pipe before you wrote that?
RonB
> He doesn't exactly write that well. He writes TV competent. Just my
> opinion, others may differ. And that might explain his constant need to
> assert his ego via pack politicism and projection of his perception of
> the behavior of others.
Writing while looking a mirror again, eh?
Paul Valois
Paulo Joe Jingy
"The main UN compound in Gaza was left in flames today after being
struck by Israeli artillery fire, and a spokesman said that the
building had been hit by shells containing the incendiary agent white
phosphorus."
----
"What more stark symbolism do you need?" he said. "You can’t put out
white phosphorus with traditional methods such as fire extinguishers.
You need sand, we don’t have sand."
Michael
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=35005
Avoid normal situations.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done... The bomb will never go
off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." -- William D. Leahy, speaking
to President Truman about the Manhattan Project, 1945