<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I only wish to use the UN as a reference point since so many others DO respect it. If that is not you, so be it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Simple logic dictates that if you respect the UN's ability to make resolutions, then you must also respect it's ability to enforce them as it sees fit. The fact that our embarrassment of a president does not understand logic does not deter from this fact.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you happen to have the resolution #'s? I suppose you condemn Israel for destroying Iraq's nuclear reactor and annexing the Golan Heights and taking out Yassin. Those are the consequences of Arabic aggression. To the victor go the spoils. You may not like it but that's the way it is. I don't see Israel gearing up their armed forces for a final showdown with Islam. I see Israel taking various steps to undermine the opposition which in turn might save some of their citizen's lives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/2002/9105.htm
UN Security Council Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting, on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon
both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK I'm insecure. Now what? You never answered my question and I have a feeling why. Those questions were a civilized way of me calling you a puss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Had you read and properly comprehended what I had written then you would have understood that I called the position of the "ad hominum attacking" author insecure and/or uniformed, not necessarily the author himself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You sound like the type of person that reasons his way through life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that's known as "intelligence".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think you could get by if you had to resort to violence. These types of people do not understand the violent mentality just because it's not common practice. I remember your stance on firearms and how you kept on and on about YOUR uninformed position. Only when backed into a corner did you partially change your theories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While your hypothesis are all false in my particular case the fact is that is is completely irrevelant with regards to a logical proof - which is precisely what an argument is in its purest form.
The irony of the "ad hominum attack" is that by nature if falsely seeks to prove a point by discrediting the author instead of disproving the point - which, of course, simply equates to one discreding himself.
Ah, fuk it - the truth is that I don't give a fuk about you, and frankly I have more important shit to do that to hope to educate you on the essentials of truth and logic
