Mountains of opinions is more like it.
And yes, I still think AI is hypocritical - on the issue of the Koran treatment. I was pretty clear on that until you went beserk with it.
Here’s the points in Amnesty International’s report on Libya that TradR sights:
Amnesty International’s findings include:
-
- laws that criminalise the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and association, leading to the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience
-
prolonged detention without access to the outside world, which facilitates torture
-
unfair trials, in particular before the People’s Court which tries political cases
-
torture and ill-treatment, which continue to be widely reported, its main use being to extract “confessions”
Although abolition of the death penalty is promised, capital punishment remains prescribed and used for a large number of offences including the peaceful exercise of political activities. Forms of “collective punishment”, including house demolition, are authorised and practised.
Past policies and events constituting grave human rights violations continue to cast a shadow on Libya’s human rights record. They include:
-
a policy of “physical liquidation” of political opponents during the 1980s;
-
numerous deaths in custody without adequate explanation;
-
the “disappearance” of political prisoners, especially since 1996; and
-
the “disappearance” of Libyan nationals abroad and foreign nationals visiting Libya.
Now, could you please tell us which one of these violations the US isn’t itself guilty of doing or being complicit with?
No, that’s up to you, sport.
You’re the one who claimed the “mountains of evidence”. :roll:
I’d call that another lame comeback, (as expected) but it’s such a humorous picture.
Other than that…
TradR, I asked you to point out any of the violations that AI had charged Libya with that you think the US isn’t itself guilty or complicit with. In the course of that I will provide evidence case by case.
LMAO
Gosh, you’re hilarious when you take yourself so seriously.
So I’ll take that to mean you can’t. That’s cool.
LMAO
“Do you think I could buy back my introduction to you?” - Groucho Marx
Has no one bothered to consult Michael Medved about this?
Is Medved the guy who got sensible then was shunned? Like John Stossel?
It did stand out a bit
Did you ever notice that he often quotes the Guardian after dismissing them as leftys because Gilder quoted them in a link 
I have neither the time nor the inclination to find examples but I am sure some of you will have seen them.
Slan,
D. Guardian reader for over twenty years
Gee, why the Small font size?
Anyway, congratulations on the lobotomy.
Did any one else note that I only claimed that AI was being hypocritical IRT the Koran issue?
Nah, didn’t think so.
Fair enough TradR, let’s have a look at exactly what you said then, shall we?
Funny… I don’t see any mention of the koran here.
Re-writing history are we?
What a hoot.
Here, maybe this will help:
con·text ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntkst)
n.
- The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
That any help?
No?
How’s this, my earlier post, from the same thread:
My point is simply that AI - especially when using terms like “gulag” in reference to a small handful of mishandlings of a Koran - is strangely silent when Muslims are blowing each other up, along with their Korans.
Of course, in your case, it isn’t ‘rewriting history’, it’s just plain dishonesty.
Poor you.
Sorry TradR, everyone can see what you said… your spin done spun nuthin. You can back-pedal to Timbuktu and it still won’t change what you said. Like Simon says – you don’t stand behind your statements.
My statements are right there for anyone to see.
You’re off your meds again. Or is your dishonesty just part of your regular routine?
That wasn’t the statement you made when I asked you to explain how AI was hypocritical. The one I posted was. Look it up and you’ll see. If what you’re saying had any merit you would have pointed it out then. Instead you swayed the issue because you couldn’t stand behind your statement with any fact. Now you come back a couple of days later and try to spin it by going back and finding something else you said – but it doesn’t fly. Everyone can see through it, TradR – give it up man – you’re embarrassing yourself now dude. Chill.
Like I said - my statements are right there for anyone who cares to go look.