Tano,

Those were not simply bloviations, those were premeditated, consciously unleashed bloviations in large part designed to communicate contempt, not an attempt to engage (though there was plenty there that was perfectly intelligible as well). The very act of engagement would inherently imply at least a modicum of respect for both the ICJ’s decision as well as your own contrived, even contortionist defense of the decision. That minimum level of respect is nonexistent for various reasons, not the least of which is you have still failed to take up the China/Tibet comparison. Given the fact the judge cum joker cum geopolitical thief who rendered the decision was Chinese, that’s more than a little relevant.

I’d ennumerate yet other reasons for that lack of respect but you haven’t even been able to represent the dissenting judge’s declaration without the all too typical – and predictable – smoke screen comprised of highly leveraged presumption, specious arrogations and similar qualities that reflect more of a superficial, pro forma performance than something grounded in a more substantive and more meaningful content.