BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 12:03 PM

it is wrong to suggest he disagrees with everything Chomsky says.

I agree with Chomsky's rejection of BDS which he bases on the grounds of it's support of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and it's demand for recognition of the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:39 AM

you might be far more effective you you actually answer the point.

To answer your Made Up Shit® would be sinking to your level, I give it the response it warrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM

Jim,

You pour out bilious accusations of antisemitism and refuse to qualify them with proof.

Jim, by the definitions of anti Semitism long used by UK police and now being enshrined in UK law, you are guilty of anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:34 AM

Dave, You still changed you statement from no one said such thing to no one on this discussion said such a thing Keith

Your original question was why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? Why expect us to answer for other people? It is reasonable to point out that none of us here have argued that, and to wonder why you ask us.

Is it "people" anyway? So far, in the whole world, you have only identified one person who said that.

Jim, The Israeli Army assisted in digging the mass graves in order to hide their participation in this massive war crime,

That is a lie Jim. A single bulldozer was loaned to the militia, but no Israelis were involved.

Until you come up with more examples, that'a all you've got.

I do not need to find more examples. We know they exist from the testimonies of people like the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan, the Deputy Leader, the Leader of Scottish Labour and others.

the Israelis have skulked behind the Jewish People to keep themselves from being tried for crimes against humanity

Another lie Jim. You are just consumed by hatred and will say anything.

So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?

No, but it is reasonable to ask why you do not condemn the actual expulsion that the Jews suffered.

Steve, that Hamas charter? It's only a "statement of desire" after all

No. It is a statement of intent by a government already acting on that intent.

Not so, Keith.

Yes so. Bobad agrees that it is OK to criticise Israel, so it is wrong to suggest he disagrees with everything Chomsky says.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:25 AM

"from the sick, twisted mind of the hateful little twerp all I can say is.."
Apparently that's all you can say - though you might be far more effective you you actually answer the point.
What do you hope to acheive by behaving as you do?
You answer nothing
You pour out bilious accusations of antisemitism and refuse to qualify them with proof.
You just present yourself as an incredibly unpleasant individual so unsure of his arguments that he can replace them by pure vindictiveness.
Is that the way you behave at home or in public life - is that the way you've been brought up to behave - do your want your cause to be associated with such behaviour?
Sorry Bobad - people like you are totally beyond me.
As you say - GET HELP - you are doing neither yourself nor Israel any favours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 10:27 AM

Well if statements of desire are "one thing," then why do you keep regaling us with that Hamas charter?

Nice attempt at making an equivalence between the charter of a ruling government and the opinion of the man on the street, but the verdict is.......FAIL!


As for this garbage:
   
So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?
What a sick, simple-minded part of the universe you occupy
Thank you for clairfying that point

from the sick, twisted mind of the hateful little twerp all I can say is........GET HELP!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

Well if statements of desire are "one thing," then why do you keep regaling us with that Hamas charter? It's only a "statement of desire" after all. Sinn Fein's call for a united Ireland is only a "statement of desire" too. We still work with them, don't we?

Not so, Keith. Whenever we list the many undeniable atrocities of the Israeli regime, bobad denies them all and calls us Jew-haters, even though we are criticising the actions of the state, not of Jews. You need to do a bit more listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

"like what was done to Jews in the Arab countries "
So yous say if Arabs in other states expel Jews then it ok for Israel to expel Arans who have nothing to do with those actions?
What a sick, simple-minded part of the universe you occupy
Thank you for clairfying that point
"Carroll?"
Tsk-tsk - your ill breeding is shoing again - couldn't you parents have made a better job than that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM

NEARLY HALF of ISRAELIS WANT TO EXPEL ARABS - TIMES of ISRAEL

Statement of desire is one thing, actual expulsion like what was done to Jews in the Arab countries and Judea and Samaria is another entirely. Goose and gander- right Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:22 AM

"She herself admits it was anti-Semitic."
And has apologised and withdrawn her statement
Why she did so is a moot point, but even if we accept her having made an anti semitic statement - that leaves you with one single identifeid example - a long way from a "major problem"
Until you come up with more examples, that'a all you've got.
What you have not got is an excuse for the fact that nearly one half of Israeli citizens, including the former Justice Minister and other officials, wish to deport the Arabs living there
There are up to 6.5 million Palestinian refugees who have been refused the right to return home - the biggest single group of refugees on the planet
These are facts - not antisemitic statements or threats - actual reality effecting actual human beings.
It is little wonder that there has been a rise in antisemitism in the world today when the Israelis have skulked behind the Jewish People to keep themselves from being tried for crimes against humanity
It puts an ill thought out comment by a labour politician in context - doesn't it?
You won't respond to this - not with facts anyway - it doesn't matter - it's not for your benefit.
The longer you continue this farce, the more chance I will have of repeating these facts and adding links to them - like this
NEARLY HALF of ISRAELIS WANT TO EXPEL ARABS - TIMES of ISRAEL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:59 AM

You have been given half a dozen references to Bulldozers being used to dig mass graves - you have nit-picked with one, but in fact Mobil actually refers to using bulldozers.
You have been supplied a dozen times with different news items stating that Israeli bulldozers were found to be on site digging mass graves (Israel actually admitted to only one in their own enquiry into the massacre, it was found that ten were used)
From the articles supplied:
"afterwards, they would bring the bulldozers to bury the people"
Ad Ma Hawil
"U.S. lend-lease bulldozers were used to dig graves for the prisoners"
Magadan
"Bulldozers used by the Indonesian military to dig mass graves"
Yadana
"Bulldozers being used to dig graves"
Mobil Gas Fields
"Bulldozers being used to raze houses on their occupants, whether dead or living, and to dig mass graves"
Sabra Shatila
"the bulldozers used to dig the mass graves"
Bosnia
To miss something occasionally is a mistake, to continually deny something from different sources from different accounts is simple dishonesty - agenda-driven lying.
You persistently request examples of your lying and I respond with lists - here's another half dozen - let's see how you deal with them
Perhaps it's worth remembering what this is really about (apart from your trying to make me out a liar or stupid – somewhat backfired here).
This arose from the fact that, after supplying weapons, access to the camp, transport, illumination and eventually, means of escape for the Falangists who spent three days massacring, raping and disembowelling up to 3,500 unarmed refugees and turning refugees attempting to escape, back into the arms of their killers, The Israeli Army assisted in digging the mass graves in order to hide their participation in this massive war crime, and eventually made most of this evidence inaccessible by building s sports stadium over them.
This atrocity was overseen by Menachem Begin, a man who was later recognised as being a fine, responsible human being and statesman by being made Prime Minister of Israel
This is what you are actually defending, not what machines were used for the job.
Your openly stupid denial of a proven fact and your wriggling attempt to hide your stupidity makes you what you are.
You are not even very good at it - at least Keith trawls up unread "real historians who sell their real books in real bookshops" to cover his efforts.
Maybe it's time you came to terms with your limitations?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:56 AM

It is perfectly feasible for a bulldozer to excavate a trench, it may even be the most efficient way, it is possible. Firstly make a small depression, then gradually create a ramp and making a deeper depression, increase the ramp and make a deeper depression eventually you have a trench with a ramp in and out.


Try it in your sandpit with your Tonka toys teri.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:42 AM

You still changed you statement from no one said such thing to no one on this discussion said such a thing Keith. It makes me very reluctant to respond to or comment on anything else when I have no idea what I am responding to or commenting on. Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, you are changing what you initially said and that was what I was responding to. Please feel free to claim that point if you like. I lose.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Steve,

So I take it you've fallen out with bobad then, Keith. He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

No. Bobad would also state categorically that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism.
The fact that Chomsky makes such a completely anodyne statement has no relevance to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:22 AM

Dave again,
When I provided chapter and verse as to who said it and where you then changed your statement to no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing. Are you saying that the article linked by bobad is untrue then? If things that appear in the media can be discounted,

No-one in this debate has claimed such a thing, so it is not part of our debate, so why raise it as an issue?
Obviously you can find someone in the world who does say whatever you want to be said. So what.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:17 AM

Dave,
The 'disputed' bit refers to the fact that it is disputed that what Naz Shah said and did was antisemitic.

Disputed by who Dave?
Just you three.

" Corbyn's aides defended Shah, saying the comments were antisemitic but the MP had "shocked herself," and did not mean what she said."

She herself admits it was anti-Semitic.
Why should anyone care or take seriously that you three think it was not?!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:06 AM

Has someone had lessons in pedantry from the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 06:03 PM

"Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?"

The question still stands Jim. You haven't answered it neither have the links you provided.

The Mobil one refers to "earth moving equipment" not bulldozers - That is credible.

The Balkans one refers to "construction equipment" not bulldozers - That too is credible.

Possibly it is a translation thing and to many anything that moves earth or operates on a civil engineering construction site is to them a "bulldozer".

The IDF had armoured bulldozers with them in South Lebanon in 1982 they are used by combat engineer units to clear obstacles - fact still remains you cannot use them to dig anything - they simply are not designed for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 05:31 PM

Well, many people have commented that you are touched :-) But I would not be so unkind.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 05:16 PM

Thanks Dave, that's touching.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM

I wouldn't quite say care enough to respond. More of a duty to consider others no matter what I actualy think of them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM

Do enjoy your reverie.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:48 PM

He, He, caught you in own little game I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM

Heheh. Spoken like a "man" who hasn't got the foggiest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:42 PM

"Bloody foreigners!"

Racist!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM

"I haven't the foggiest"

You can say that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:35 PM

He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

He's just another opinion - ask your friend Greg what opinions are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:34 PM

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Mr Ban gave Keith the same difficulty on the nomenclature front, Raggytash. Damn those non-English spellings, eh, Keith? Bloody foreigners!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 PM

Maybe we shouldn't, bobad but why should we care what you think either?

Well, you seem to care enough to respond but why you should or shouldn't I haven't the foggiest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:22 PM

So I take it you've fallen out with bobad then, Keith. He NEVER listens to Chomsky...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:14 PM

The 'disputed' bit refers to the fact that it is disputed that what Naz Shah said and did was antisemitic. She did criticise the state of Israel and many people would dispute that is antisemitic. I suspect that many other people would have read my comment as that but, for some reason Keith, you and I seem to have a communication barrier that I do not know how to surmount. There is also the fact that, when I referred to 'rampant antisemitism' you said specifically that No-one is or has said that Dave. When I provided chapter and verse as to who said it and where you then changed your statement to no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing. Are you saying that the article linked by bobad is untrue then? If things that appear in the media can be discounted, which sources are we to rely on?

What was your speculation on the cause of Labour's 'problems' anyway? I must have missed that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:11 PM

Sadiq .......................

not Sadique ..........


and this idiot wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM

Teribus
"Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim?"
This and my two posting above all contain references to bulldozersw being used to dig mass graves
Perhaps it's time you added Civil Engineering to your already impressive "know sweet **** all about' list
University Challenge beckons!!
Are you going to provide evidence of the types of antisemitism yet Keith or are we finished on that one?
Jim Carroll

MOBIL GAS FIELDS
BALKANS

SABRA SHATILA

BOSNIA

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:59 PM

Dave again,
Including people like Noam Chomsky who categorically states that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism.

I categorically state that too.
So does the government of Israel.
I have never come across anyone who would disagree with that statement and I am bemused that you thought it worth stating in a serious discussion Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM

YADANA

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

Dave,
Do you still dispute that the statement that it is rampant in the Labour party has been used?

Yes. It may have appeared in some article but no-one in this debate has claimed such a thing.

Let us make our own minds up whether it is antisemitic, rather than rely on the words of journalists.

I do not rely on the words of journalists.
I rely on the words of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

Post what they say not what other people say

No need. I can prove my case using the statements of the NEC, the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Sadique Khan and other insiders.
Why would anyone disregard their statements?
Do any of you three think you know better, or that they are all lying?

There are many people who dispute the definition of antisemitism being used.

That was not the issue.
You claimed, "Naz Shah is not of the far left and that seems to be the only example that can be verified and even that is disputed." and I replied,
"Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it. "

Once again you have failed to answer the question. If you do not know the answer, fine, just say so.

The reason for Labour's problems are unknowable. We can only speculate and I already have.
The fact that they have a problem is indisputable though.

Steve,
If you think that anything you said in that post proves you right,

On the EUMC definition being defunct, I have been proved right and you wrong.
On the Labour Party having a serious issue with anti-Semitism, I have been proved right and you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

AL MA HAWIL

MAGADAN

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:36 PM

Maybe we shouldn't, bobad but why should we care what you think either?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM

Including people like Noam Chomsky ....

Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics with extremist political views, he represents no one other than himself. Why should we care what he thinks?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM

Hi Keith

Dave,
why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder?

No-one is or has said that Dave.

I quote directly from the article linked by bobad on 9th Dec. "Most recently, Corbyn has come under fire for his failure to properly address rampant Jew-hatred and antisemitic anti-Zionism within his own party." Do you still dispute that the statement that it is rampant in the Labour party has been used?

and that seems to be the only example that can be verified

Others are referred to in those Guardian links I gave yesterday.
Then there are Livingstone's.
Also Marc Wadsworth.

So, they were referred to. What antisemitic phrases were used? Have Livingstone and Wadsworth been arrested for hate crimes? Post what they say not what other people say. Let us make our own minds up whether it is antisemitic, rather than rely on the words of journalists.

Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think.
Can you quote anyone else disputing it.

There are many people who dispute the definition of antisemitism being used. Including people like Noam Chomsky who categorically states that criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism. But even if there were not so many or none so distinguished, it would still be true that it is a disputed definition.

My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party

Why indeed. It is though.


Once again you have failed to answer the question. If you do not know the answer, fine, just say so. But please stop referring to it if you have nothing to add.

My questions are a genuine attempt to get to the bottom of what is obviously a very complex issue. I don't think we will find all the answers here and I, for one, will be happy in the knowledge that I have at least learned something. There is nothing black and white about this. No winners or losers. Better to be sympathetic to all than adversarial. In my opinion.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM

Hi Teribus

from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the "Labour Friends of Israel" from? And from what section of the overall spectrum that makes up the Labour Party are the anti-Israeli BDS Supporters and activists from?

I really have no idea. It is not something I have ever looked up. I could Google it of course but as you seem to be in the know maybe you could enlighten me and perhaps let us know what effect it has on the discussion. Thanks.

As you did not respond to Keith A's statement - who said that Naz Shah was extreme left? The answer of course is nobody.

I know. I think you may have missed the point. It was stated that most of the complaints were directed against the left wing yet the example being bandied about is Naz Shah. The point being, if it is mainly against the left wing, where are the examples of that?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

Keeeith
You can wriggle around this as much as you want and misinterpret this as mauch as you want, but making an accusation and refusing to substantiating it is totally unprecedented and utterly ridiculous and you know it - which is why you refuse to respond by giving a previous example of it ever happening.
Game over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 12:02 PM

If you think that anything you said in that post proves you right, you must be even more doolally bloody tap than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Jim,
"Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!"
No it didn't and no-one in Labour has qualified those

Yes it did and I have quoted them doing it.
The NEC claimed it, the Deputy Leader claimed it, Sadiq Khan claimed it......
Were they all lying Jim?
Is that your case?!!
If so, it is a joke.

Steve, BBC today,
"The IHRA - which is backed by 31 countries, including the UK, US, Israel, France and Germany - hopes the definition will be adopted globally as a "political tool" to deal with anti-Jewish hate crime."

So what is your opinion worth Steve?

The Labour Party backs it, so what is your opinion worth Steve?

"Police in the UK already use this definition, which was adopted by the EU's Agency for Fundamental Rights. "

So it is the same as the EUMC definition that you asserted was defunct, so what is your opinion worth Steve?

How you ridiculed and insulted me over that, but as usual I was proved right and you wrong again.
Poor you Steve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38281950

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 10:00 AM

Deleted a bit inadvertently
"Making criticism of Israeli policy "antisemitic" is exactly that"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:41 AM

"Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing.
Making criticism of Israeli policy is exactly that
"Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim!"
No it didn't and no-one in Labour has qualified those
The ambiguous meaning you have put on their response neither accepts or identifies actual antisemitism - just the need to deal with the accusations, which they have done and found nothing.
Until someone actually identifies the antisemitism that is supposed to be a problem in the Labour Party - it does not exist, and the fact that nobody ever has is proof positive that it doesn't
Our circular arguments finish here unless you are prepared to put a face to your claims
This gets more and more stupid the longer you persist
I ask again, can you provide one example in democratic history where people can be accused of something without that something being identified
Franz Kafka wrote a brilliant novel besed on just this bizarre piece of injustice and the longer you contine, the more your claims resemble that classic.
I assume we are now agreed that the definition has been torn up by the Israelis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM

your self-hating ones

I have never used that term - it is mostly used by Jews themselves and Jew haters in mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM

Ah, so are you admitting that only Jews drew up your definition? Even I didn't think that! And I can't help being a non-Jew, you racist! Though I suppose you should really have checked that with me first. I could have been one of your self-hating ones for all you know!

Why don't you just stick to loving Dylan just because I don't? Safer ground for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

Any other definition may be a definition of something or other but it isn't a definition of antisemitism

Once again a leftist non-Jew feels curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:13 AM

I won't be caught by false definitions, Keith. If you ever catch me attacking Jews in any way, shape or form because they are Jews, it'll be a fair cop guv. Any other definition may be a definition of something or other but it isn't a definition of antisemitism, and I care not a jot how many of your rather dubious "authorities" of tendentious predisposition say so. Unlike you, I have a mind of my own. Go and ride your bike or something.