[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You have trouble reading Doc? Here is what I challenged: the alleged “plastic keys” and 10 years old kids.
Mighty specific there in your ethics, Scumbag. Did you choose the age of 10 because you knew the facts, or because that is the age of the boys you prefer to bugger? [/quote]
Skep, you are either and idiot of the highest order, or simply can’t be bothered to read my posts.
I repeatedly stated that I don’t know “the facts” and was seeking to collect input on the topic. I wasn’t there and nobody that was ever went public with the story. You’d think one of those numerous people fleeing Iran must have seen it happen and that the UN or some EU institution would provide the stage for him/her.
I didn’t “choose the age of 10”. Lumbernac was the one who made the claim. And while I personally have no problem with allowing 15 or 16 years old defend their homeland when under attack, doing the same for 10 years old is horror itself. This would be a sure to rally up everybody against you even if the sleazeball who waged a war of aggression on your land. The Iraqi war on Iran made plenty of orphans, but that is no possible excuse to gather 10 years old and exploit their desire for revenge in that way.
[quote]I see absolutely nothing in your article that adds anything to this discussion besides what we all already heard about.
Precisely, Scumbag, this article is established and fact-checked against your lies, years ago. It is not new because the truth is not new, but your lies keep changing. [/quote]
Established and fact-checked? By who? The tooth-fairy? Martin Peretz?
More importantly, what “lies”? I challenged - in the nicest possible way - Lumbernac’s statement that there is any evidence of the Iranian leadership giving “plastic keys” to 10 years old and sending them to die on the battlefield. I stated that it wouldn’t surprise me if it turned to be real, but that before such evidence emerges, he should refrain from presenting as fact.
[quote]And Kuntzel? Is that the best you can do? The guy from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who was banned from speaking at Leeds University last year?
And you, Scumbag, have the continuing gall to claim the invalidity of the ad hominem argument? But it is allowed especially for honest Jewish reporters? This article, and its facts, defy your antisemitic characterization of its author, and since the truth is a discomfort to the liars. If Leeds University has its own hateful reasons to ban Jews for being Jews, does this give your lies some credit? [/quote]
What in the name of God are you talking about? “Antisemitic characterization of its author”? Can you read at all?
When trying to elevate rumors and hearsay to the status of “fact”, it does help more if the source isn’t so evidently and blatantly biased.