Israel and Apartheid Slander: Richard Goldstone
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
You mean that one is a 500 page report with on-site interviews and on-site reviews of physical evidence by a group of Human Rights scholars according to a transparent methodology that included full public hearings while the other is a single page op-ed without any evidence by a man that has been abused for his views?Yup. One was written by a committee and one was written by the man. It really undercuts the value of the report now doesn't it...
Yes, they are quite different.
The Goldstone Report that the author said was flawed because information was held back?You mean that one is a 500 page report with on-site interviews and on-site reviews of physical evidence by a group of Human Rights scholars according to a transparent methodology that included full public hearings while the other is a single page op-ed without any evidence by a man that has been abused for his views?
Yes, they are quite different.
Why would the guy who chaired the committee which authored the report know anything about the accuracy of the content. LOL. The g & g clowns are at their hilarious (although always pathetic) best when they are trying to deny or explain away the obvious.Yup. One was written by a committee and one was written by the man. It really undercuts the value of the report now doesn't it...
Really? Send us the link to the modified Goldstone Report. You know, the one the author changed because it was wrong.The Goldstone Report that the author said was flawed because information was held back?
I suspect you can't find it. Why? Because the author did not change a thing.
In fact, a follow up report by another set of independent Human Rights scholars, confirmed everything in the Goldstone Report.
Really? Send us the link to the modified Goldstone Report. You know, the one the author changed because it was wrong.
I suspect you can't find it. Why? Because the author did not change a thing.
In fact, a follow up report by another set of independent Human Rights scholars, confirmed everything in the Goldstone Report.
No one claimed that the author changed the report. More of the Fringe. All I said is that he claimed the report was flawed and the reasons
It's truly amazing how badly you understand plain english.
The original Goldstone report was flawed. It took the position that any missing information should be assumed to be negative towards Israel. That was horribly wrong, as I pointed out at the time.
To his credit, though, as new information came out, repudiating the assumptions in the report, Goldstone acknowledged that, and changed his position.
Some people, when the facts change, change their opinion. And then there is Gryfin, bitterly clinging to a repudiated document because his hate can't stand the idea that Israel might not have done anything wrong.
To his credit, though, as new information came out, repudiating the assumptions in the report, Goldstone acknowledged that, and changed his position.
Some people, when the facts change, change their opinion. And then there is Gryfin, bitterly clinging to a repudiated document because his hate can't stand the idea that Israel might not have done anything wrong.
The original Goldstone report was flawed. It took the position that any missing information should be assumed to be negative towards Israel. That was horribly wrong, as I pointed out at the time.
To his credit, though, as new information came out, repudiating the assumptions in the report, Goldstone acknowledged that, and changed his position.
Some people, when the facts change, change their opinion. And then there is Gryfin, bitterly clinging to a repudiated document because his hate can't stand the idea that Israel might not have done anything wrong.
On the contrary, The Goldstone Report has not been modified in any way. None of its authors have submitted or requested a change. Furthermore, a subsequent review by another set of human rights scholars of the Goldstone Report and it's conclusions resulted in another confirmation of the report. So much for the new facts myth.
The Goldstone report stands, show us official word from the UN that they've removed it or altered it.That's right, gryfin, it has not been modified in any way since it was discredited, which means it is still discredited, the flaws have not been fixed, and so on.
Keep on clinging.
You're just pushing propaganda, Fuji.
The Goldstone report stands, show us official word from the UN that they've removed it or altered it.
You're just pushing propaganda, Fuji.
G, you are truly pathetic. The rest of the Israel haters have gone silent on this and left you and sand flea buddy hang in the wind on this one.
Constantly repeating this crap, no matter how many different ways you word it, doesn't make it true
It defies the imagination how dumb you would have to be to think that Goldstone himself refuting the report is meaningless. Defies the imagination.The Goldstone report stands, show us official word from the UN that they've removed it or altered it.
You would have to be really, really, really consumed with hatred to try and ignore that little detail.
Is it really slander?
Then why hasn't anyone sued Jimmy Carter for expressing the idea?
Does he hate Israel?
http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jimmy-carter-peace-not-apartheid.jpg
Then why hasn't anyone sued Jimmy Carter for expressing the idea?
Does he hate Israel?
http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jimmy-carter-peace-not-apartheid.jpg
As it happens he was sued although io expect that such a case will be tossed out summarily. He has a right to express that view as do other. It does not make the view true or correct.Is it really slander?
Then why hasn't anyone sued Jimmy Carter for expressing the idea?
Does he hate Israel?
http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jimmy-carter-peace-not-apartheid.jpg
He is entitled to his opinion as are you. That does not make it so.Carter's Camp David Accord proves he isn't anti Israel, he isn't wrong about using the term apartheid in this case either.
I didn't say he was anti Israel. I said he was lying. See post #1.Carter's Camp David Accord proves he isn't anti Israel, he isn't wrong about using the term apartheid in this case either.
