Re: Blow-by-blow account of Brothers to the Rescue tragedy


"Dan Christensen" <dchris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188319872.555412.81050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 28, 10:13 am, "PL" <pl.nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipping portion of PL's posting already debunked here, or too lame
to bother with]

bu which comrade Dan means that he snips what he can't refute

Scroll up, idiot! See the part about photos in the Miami Herald
clearly showing USAF markings??? That was several years BEFORE the
shootdown -- in 1993!

Three years before comrade DAn and at a point that they seem to have
acquired Airforce Surplus planes.

And several months AFTER the shootdown, according to facts disclosed
in the Security Council debate.
(snip)

each time when new planes were bought from the Army surplus it seems.
But thanks for confirming you can not prove that ANY of the planes shot down
had military colours.

All fotos of the planes involved and the planes used at the time of the
shootdown - not any possible replacement bought later - show the planes
had
civilian markings.

Already debunked here.

Never debunked.

You only show crap that predates the killings by 3 years when some planes
were acquired and of 5 months later when probably replacements were
acquired.

[snip]

Let's see your proof that replacements were acquired.
(snip)

the issue is whether teh actual planes shot down had military colours.
You have providede no a single shred of eveidence for that.
Again you go down in flames comrade Dan.
All images prove the contrary.

Again the standard reply to your "lobbyist" lie Mr. Cyber-liar (posted at
the end of the reply to each time Dan Christensen repeats his lie)

Quote me comrade Dan. You claimed you can and you never did.
We both know you can't.

Try something like this:

Quote:
"In my opinion the advances made by the Revolution are morally well
worth fighting for and justify the use of these extraordinary measures.
In this case, the ends do indeed justify the means.
........
These measures, however, would NOT be morally justified in propping less
worthy regimes in the region -- the USA and its vassal states in the
Caribbean and Latin America come immediately to mind."

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=tirG3.176162%245r2.278940%40tor-nn1.netcom.ca

"It is wrong to think that a particular end justifies EVERY means. At
this time, for example, it would be wrong of the Cuban government to
send death squads after their opponents as happens in Mexico and
Colombia. Again, the actions of the Cuban government in detaining these
so-called dissidents seem quite mild in comparison and are morally
justified under the circumstances."

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=txMG3.176443%245r2.284921%40tor-nn1.netcom.ca

Unquote.

You lie about me as you lied about Wayne Smith, Amnesty
International,
Genocide Watch, ..........

Still waiting for the "Geneva" proof comrade Dan.
That "episode" clearly exposes your lies.

As I said comrade Dan.
Every time you post that lie about me I post the truth about you.

Remember the lie about "lobbying in Geneva" while I actually was on
vacation in Cuba (as the source IP address of my posts in SCC at that
time prove).
This was your false claim:
"Taking a little break from arm-twisting in Geneva, Mr. Lobbyist?"
Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/b6375f9783e47aee?q=g:thl174670614d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

Your inability to substantiate any of it is the best proof of your lies.

Nothing more than another example of your lies and misquotes like the
ones below:

YOUR LIE about Wayne Smith
"It is clear from Smith's article here (and his website, CIP Online)
that he does, in fact, support an immediate and unconditional lifting
of your beloved embargo."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/3f1fe3a55c12d7d7?dmode=source&hl=en

HIS own words:

'We should reduce tensions, not aggravate it, making it clear to the Cuban
government that we do not have hostile intentions toward them,'' Smith said
during a 40-minute speech at a conference titled Cuba and the United States:
Relations in Permanent Conflict, Causes, Effects and Solutions.
''I did not say lift the embargo without conditions,'' he said.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/12157593.htm
You can enter after a free registration.

Permanent copy in the Cubaverdad archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaVerdad/message/16823

YOUR LIE about Amnesty International.
Another example of the same lie: putting words in people's mouth.

Do you deny that in your posts you put some snippets from the report
quoted below and on your site you also falsely claim about the same
report
that:

"Today, for the first time, Amnesty International has explicitly
denounced the US embargo on Cuba in humanitarian terms, and made clear
its support for the immediate and unconditional lifting of these cruel
sanctions"
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ215.html

Link to the "report": (the one you didn't give until I shamed you in to it)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250172003?open&of=ENG-CUB

They aren't calling for an "immediate and unconditional" end to the
trade sanctions in that report, are they?
Do you deny you snipped the words "immediate and unconditional" from
these sentences in the report (THE ONLY PLACES WHERE THEY ARE USED):

"in 1.
"On the basis of the available information, therefore, Amnesty
International considers the 75 dissidents to be prisoners of
conscience(2) and calls for their immediate and unconditional
release."

In 8.1
" to immediately and unconditionally release the 15 prisoners
previously named by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience.


" to immediately and unconditionally release anyone else who is
detained or imprisoned solely for having peacefully exercised their
rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly."

and added to those snippets your own words to create this sentence on
your lying website:

" Amnesty International has explicitly denounced the US embargo on Cuba
in humanitarian terms, and made clear its support for the immediate and
unconditional lifting of these cruel sanctions"

that sentence:
1. isn't in the report
2. isn't supported by the tenure and the conclusions of the report

You snipped two three words used by Amnesty to condemn the Castro
regime and abused them in a sentence to imply support for your cause: a
BLATANT LIE.

What the report actually recommends about the "embargo" is:

"Amnesty International calls on the United States government
- to immediately suspend decisions on any measures that could toughen
the embargo.
- to review its foreign and economic policy towards Cuba, with an aim
towards ending this damaging practice.
- to place enjoyment of the full range of human rights at the
forefront of its concerns in developing new policy towards Cuba."

Clearly no immediate and unconditional end is demanded as Dan claims.
The request is for not stiffening the sanctions and to review a policy
that places "enjoyment of the full range of human rights at the
forefront of its concerns".

See:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250172003?open&of=ENG-CUB

Lies and more lies from comrade Dan Christensen, the resident Canadian
Stalinist propagandist of SCC.

PL




.

Relevant Pages