Skip to main content

View Diary: All you ever need to know about Israel: Part I (875 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are justifying the Hebron massacre, (1+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    Gimmeliberty
    Hidden by:
    pletzs, mattes, curmudgiana

    Shame on you.

    I have thought you were an anti-Semite for a long time but your inexplicable attempts to excuse the massacre of 133 Jews for being Jews is the nail in the coffi

    You have been making the bogus claim that everyone is calling you an anti-Semite for months.    Well, I hope this makes you happy.

    Curmudgiana, you are an anti-Semite.

    •  So we get your hate out into the open at last (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coolhappyMax

      like popping a boil full of pus, it comes gushing out to fill the air with its stench.

      Let me remind you that personal attacks are grounds for banning from DKos.  In particular, personal attacks based on lies.

      And you are adding to your lies with this one:

      You have been making the bogus claim that everyone is calling you an anti-Semite for months.

      I have made no such claim.  Very few people have ever dared to call me such a thing to my face, and those few who have done so have always been made to retract it.

      You are a liar and a hate-monger.

      I dare you to prove what you say.  I dare you to find one instance of my ever complaining that anyone is calling me an anti-semite, let alone "everyone".

      Go ahead.  Make my day.

      •  Here you go (0+ / 0-)

        You and your ilk keep claiming that all criticism of Israel equals a charge of anti-Semitism.

        Here is ONE example.

        Because he is only interested (0 / 0)
        in yelling "anti-semitism" whenever people mention Israel, and threatening Democrats that Jews won't vote for them if they don't back up Israeli policies.

        by curmudgiana on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 05:12:18 PM EST
        [ Parent ]

        Here is another..

        For some people (4+ / 0-)
        any criticism of Israel is supporting "Palestinian terrorism."

        As Pumpkinlove's comments tend.

        by curmudgiana on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 04:24:08 PM EST
        [ Parent ]

        •  "ilk" doesn't cut it (0+ / 0-)

          And none of these statements come anywhere close to supporting your malicious, defamatory lies.

                 libel

                   1. n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.

          You do not seem to take this charge seriously.  You seem to think you can publicize malicious lies about people without regard to the consequences of what you say.

          I take it very seriously indeed.

        •  online libel (0+ / 0-)

          US Ruling makes libel in cyberspace punishable

          New York Times
          December 18, 2000

          ...

          The statements were written by an individual who went by the handle "fbiinformant" and who was later discovered to be Dr. Jonathan Oppenheimer, a pathologist based in Nashville, Tennessee.

          Following a two-day trial, a jury ofund on October 25th that my publsishing the statements, Dr. Oppenheimer and a company that he operates were guilty of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

          In reaching it's verdict, the jury necessarily concluded that statements penned by Dr. Oppenheimer were false and harmful to Dr. Graham's reputation and that Dr. Oppenheimer acted negligentlyand even recklessly in publishing them.

          ...

          The case also serves as an important reminder, experts said, that the rules of libel apply online as much as they do in the world of newspapers and magazines.

          "What this case demonstrates is that people can be held responsible for what they post on the Net even though they posted anonymously," said Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, a prefessor at the University of Florida's Levin College of law and an expert on defamation in cyberspace. "People need to understand that if they make an allegation of fact about someone online that is damaging to a person's reputation, they better make sure that statement is true; otherwisethey can be held liable for libel", she added.

    •  Libel: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coolhappyMax

      libel

      1. n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.
    •  Hey, are you going to defend your lies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattes

      about me, or retract them?

      I'm waiting.

    •  huge leap (0+ / 0-)

      really PL, get a grip

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site