lowe
pre 12 godina
“Unreasonable to expect un ambassador to be unprepared when expressing his opinion to journalists ?! “
Of course it is unreasonable. In any case as I already shown you, Rogozin did talk about Nato’s people and so your claim that he did not is pure FALSEHOOD! No way you are going to be able to wriggle out of your mistake!
“Of course” because you say so ?! I can say that, of course, he was referring to the moon and the stars :) “
Because I was able to prove to you with that Arabic news report link that he really did refer to Nato’s generals and thereby demolished your entire argument entirely. Okay, how about you now prove that he was referring to the moon and stars?????? But I wouldn’t be wasting my time waiting for your “proof” – this is yet another one of your FALSE claims.
“You did say that “you couldn't possibly have overlooked the timing reference in your words to the present and not the past” and I’m telling you that “past” does not matter because 827 is still in force.
Also, I did not fail anything because I told you already that 827 does not exclude anybody in the world from its subject matter. But Rogozin spoke about “Nato” and not persons…”
Well, can you dispute that your statement was made in the present tense and therefore referring to the future? Don‘t forget that you like to pick on others over grammar and so you should be perfection personified on this yourself -- and I am just referring to your exact words.
You are so WRONG AGAIN about Rogozin not referring to persons – he talked about Nato generals (whom I like to think are human beings despite what they did to Serbia) and you are like the classic ostrich with its head firmly stuck inside the sand desperately shutting your eyes to clear cut evidence
“Well, they then better find some more capable people for ambassadors who are more predictable that will follow Moscow’s policy ! “
Show me how Rogozin’s detailed words is a contradiction of Moscow’s policy. Did any of his bosses repudiate what he said? This statement being yet another FALSITY on your part!
“Well, NATO is a subject of many laws… It’s just not subject of resolution 827. The disagreement is in the fact that Rogozin made Nato a subject of 827, as well, whereas Russia did not. “
Yet another FALSE statement by you! Rogozin did NOT make Nato a subject of 827 since he talked about Nato’s generals.
“UNSC Document S/PV.3217 page 6 says that Mr. Yuli Vorontsov (presiding the Security Council for the Russian Federation) voted in favor of Resolution 827 which makes only persons subject of the ICTY thus disagreeing with Mr. Rogozin who also makes organizations (Nato) subject of the ICTY. So, either Mr. Vorontsov or Rogozin represents Russia’s position, but not both. Therefore my statement is not FALSE.”
Well, Rogozin talked about Nato generals who can be liable under 827, right? So your statement that he did not is absolutely FALSE …… this being yet another of your string of false statements so far!
“Of course it is in variance because Rogozin did not say “those in Nato” but “Nato”. “
And pray tell, who are the Nato generals if they do not fall under “those in Nato”???????????
“I did not say “current government”; I said “Russia”… Not sure what you are speaking about “
Desperately trying to feign ignorance now? No way I am going to let you off the hook. Let me refresh your failing memory – on 3 June 2011 you defined Russia as the government. And that particular sentence of yours was made in the PRESENT tense. So how can I not conclude that you must be referring to the present government?
“Of course, nobody from Nato is exempted. However that was not what Rogozin said. He said “Nato” not “anybody from Nato” thus being in disagreement with Russia. “
Gosh, you keep insisting what he did not refer to people from Nato even in the face of clear cut evidence that he did. Your denial however cannot alter the facts which make a mockery of your FALSE statements.
“Of course I will refer exactly the the words, unless those who said those words come and speak differently. “
You have mocked others for not doing their homework – the classic case of the pot calling the kettle black! You FAILED to find out what he actually said in that interview which rendered your claim that he was not talking about those in Nato INVALID and FALSE!
“I’m glad that Rogozin finally learned that Nato is not a subject of ICTY, but “Nato Generals” (or, for that matter, everybody in the world) is if they committed serious violations of IHL in former Yugoslavia “
Actually he did not “finally learned” (yet one more FALSE statement from you!!!!!!) …… the Arabic news report quoted what Rogozin actually said in that interview while B92 only paraphrased him. And you were negligent in not finding out what he actually said before you mocked him for his lack of knowledge – and you ended up making a fool of yourself instead in the process because of your own omission.
“I did not say that Nato is a robot. I did say Nato is not a subject of 827, but it is subject of other laws. And I am not false at all in regards to the words B92 reported, which I assume stand as long as B92 does not issue a correction. As I said, I’m glad that Mr. Rogozin, in the interview for Moscow Echo radio remembers what Russia’s policy is and mentions “Nato generals” and not “Nato”, “enemies of serbs”, etc, as he did in the citation from B92. “
It is YOUR responsibility to check your facts before passing judgment on Rogozin. This you have FAILED to do so. You claimed that in that particular interview which Rogozin gave that he did not refer to those in Nato. The facts are that he referred to people in Nato in that interview and so your statement that he did not do so is FALSE !!!!
“That's a mistype ("n" for "r") that does not affect any of my arguments where I repeatedly said that I was referring to "persons". But B92 did not mention any other words from Mr. Rogozin to make it clear that he was referring to people when he said "Nato". And sure, I don’t have any problem with Mr. Rogozin coming out and saying, sorry, he misspoke and he meant “Nato generals” and not “Nato”.”
Nope. You like to hold people to their EXACT words and so why should you have the privilege of being exempt from your own high standards????? Anyone who check your favorite Merriam-Webster will see clearly the difference between the “violators” and “violations”. And you were referring to the latter which makes your statement FALSE once again!
“Dude, EU is the legal successor of the European Communities. What you’re saying is like saying Kosovo was part of Serbia-Montenegro, but not Serbia. If Morocco had become member of the ECs, it would have been member, ipso jure, of the EU. So you've not showing anything false from what I said (except for gramatical errors which we can find a lot on both sides if you want, but I don't have any intention on wasting time on that unless they are not clarified and affect the argument).
(icj1, 12 June 2011 20:41)”
You claimed that Morocco applied to join the EU (and NOT the European Communities) in 1987. Your claim is FALSE since the EU did NOT legally exist back in 1987!
The 1992 Maastrict treaty stated the intentions of the signatories to be:
“HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union and to this end have designated as their plenipotentiaries: “ ……. followed by the list of heads of states at that time. So they only decided to establish the EU in 1992.
Moreover, Article A of this treaty began with “By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called ‘the Union’.”
These provisions in the Maastrict Treaty clearly show that the EU was only intended to be formed legally in 1992 and did not exist back in 1987 thereby making your statement about Morocco FALSE!
Just as you demanded of Rogozin to be crystal clear that he was referring to people in Nato (which he did and so proved your claim FALSE), so you have, in this case, failed miserably in meeting your own standards when you claimed that Morocco applied to join the legally non-existent EU in 1987. Indeed, why should you, of all people, be exempt from your own standards?
30 Komentari
Sortiraj po: