"You called it a chemical weapon attack to make it sound much worse than it was."
She called it a chemical weapon attack because it was a chemical weapon attack.
You have denied it was a chemical weapon attack despite the fact that it was a chemical weapon attack.
"He called it a chemical weapon attack to liken it to Halabja."
When and where? (I don't really expect a reply to this - you don't do awkward questions - but I just thought I'd try).
"I also objected to him calling it genocidal."
I believe that if they were not in the public eye Israel would have no hesitation in wiping out any Palestinian in the way of their territorial ambitions - or anybody else for that matter. However, I did offer to modify the term to 'ethnic cleansing' some time back so as not to offend your sensibilities and I have not used either term since (though I have no doubt that this is a fair description of their behaviour) - yet, in the true spirit of debate, you have chosen to ignore this fact - methinks the lady doth protest too much!
The state you are defending is a terrorist state, it has slaughtered unarmed civilians including the elderly, women and children, it has destroyed homes hospitals and schools, it has used chemical weapons upon civilians, it has attempted to starve the population into submission and it has seized Palestinian land (and is now making it legal to do so by altering their laws.
As a terrorist state it has carried out assassinations, is involved in wholesale espionage (only recently it carried out an assassination using forged Irish passports) and has been publicly seen in an act of piracy.
As I said - a terrorist state.
The fact that its policy is heavily influenced by religious fundamentalism makes it as unstable as any of the Muslim states of a similar leaning and the fact that is a nuclear power makes it a world threat.
Jim Carroll