 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Labour party discussion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:07 PM Only 10%? It's 20 at M&S! Nothing like a Lancashire man having his prejudices about Yorkshire tightfistedness confirmed! 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:09 PM :-D Like I said before, you can always tell a Yorkshireman. But you can't tell him much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:53 PM I reckon that it's socialist to drink cheap wine from Southern European cooperatives though I can't help being very fond of Torres Viña Sol from Spain even though Torres is a big producer. Get that for a fiver and it's the only white you'll ever need to buy. That Morrisons Nero d'Avola I mentioned is a typical example. Tesco Nero d'Avola is another cracker, usually six quid but I wait till they give you 25% off for six. There's a damn good Negroamaro from Puglia at M&S but it's eight quid. But M&S are always doing 25% off for six. For a nice lighter red there's Asda Frappato from Sicily which is under a fiver. Really good bog-standard red is Waitrose Mellow and Fruity which comes from Campo de Borga in northern Spain, under a fiver. As a Labour man I see it as my duty to seek out good reds. Someone's got to do it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: bobad Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:17 PM Corbyn appears unsure on what his party's stance is on Russia's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo, leaves the stage to ask advice. It seems that he doesn't want to upset his friends in Russia and Hezbollah by condemning the bombing so makes a saccharine statement without mentioning any names. Channel 4 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Dec 16 - 04:27 AM "You don't know what you're talking about" Then enlighten me with documented facts Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established yet they have consistently driven of Bedoins using high powered water cannons and CHEMICAL SPRAY More recently, the israelis have adopted similar techniques on PALESTINIAN LANDS Bedouins have used the are as itinerent sheep herders for centuries and, as you say settled the land during Ottoman and British rule - they are where they are being evicted from legally The Israeli regime attempted to move evicted Bedouins onto a TOXIC RUBBISH DUMP - after three attempts, they abandoned the idea following world-wide outcry Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time - personally I see no point in responding to your idiotic spiral arguments any more The facts are the facts - NO SPECIFIED CHARGES - NATURAL JUSTICE - NO CRIME, SIMPLE AS THAT Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM I thought Peter Tatchell's protest was a good one, peaceful and measured, and Jeremy, though he managed to retain his dignity, was just a little bang to rights on Labour's recent weak response to the outrage in Syria. Not the wrong response, but way too diffident. I've orchestrated the odd invasion of meetings like that myself. They are incredibly effective when it comes to giving a voice to sidelined opinion. I like Peter. He's a damn sight better than most of the people we like to think of as national treasures. I think his protest might actually have done Labour some good. It is time for a bit of firming up, no doubt about it. So there! 😉 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: bobad Date: 11 Dec 16 - 08:14 AM Israel has no right to evict from land that was occupied before the state was established 1. The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people. 2. The encampments were on untitled land 3. When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state. Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:47 AM A very large number of Bedouin homes are not temporary camps. They are real buildings. It would help if Israel stopped knocking them down, an unfortunate predilection of a regime when confronted by its Arabic neighbours. The regime moans about environmental issues in the Negev but will not put the villages on the water, sewerage and rubbish removal grids. The history of the Bedouin prior to the formation of Israel is one of tolerance and peaceful negotiation and co-existence, though they have always suspected that signing things may lose them their rights. But when Israel come along it was suddenly different... Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963: We should transform the Bedouins into an urban proletariat – in industry, services, construction, and agriculture. 88% of the Israeli population are not farmers, let the Bedouin be like them. Indeed, this will be a radical move which means that the Bedouin would not live on his land with his herds, but would become an urban person who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations. [Moshe Dayan to Haaretz, 1963] Nothing racist about these Israeli leaders then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM "The Bedouin "villages" were temporary encampments as they were a nomadic people." It doesn't matter - it has nothing to do with the Israeli regime, and even if it had, a toxic rubbish dump is no alternative settlement "The encampments were on untitled land" They were there before Israel became Israel "When Israel became a state all untitled land became property of the state" No it did not, any more than houses occupied by Arabs did - there were people living there and by "squatters rights" the land was theirs. I take it by your silence that you have no argument with the toxic site and the use of chemicals and water cannon to evict them (or is that more "Carroll made-up shit" Are you really defending this obscene behavior? Please say "yes" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: bobad Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM Oh, and by the way, do the Jews evicted and dispossessed from the Arab countries and from Judea and Samaria have the right to return to their land? Inquiring minds would like to know. I take it by your silence that you would not extend the same rights to Jews as you advocate for the non Jews who were and are merely squatters on land that they do not own. No surprise that, eh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: bobad Date: 11 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM Hear what Mad Moshe said about the Bedouin in 1963: 1963 you say. Let me refer you to something that has relevance to the present day: 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' 'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.' '[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' 'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions - which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ... and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.' THE CHARTER OF ALLAH: THE PLATFORM OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM Whoever said whatever about Israel - you have been given a list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place, carried out (not threatened) by the Israeli regime towards anybody who gets in their way All your stupid quotes (in this case from an activist working to stop BDS) doesn't measure up to what has happened to Palestinians at the hands of the Israelii and what is still happening Threats such as the ones you quote don't count for one of the lives of the 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women, slaughtered during Operation Protective Edge or or the 1398 Palestinians slaughtered during Operation Cast Lead nor the 318 children and the 108 women of the 926 non combatants killed previously I know how much it upsets you people to mention the deaths refugees facilitated by the Israeli army at SABRA -SHATILA - so I take pleasure in doing so. If I was a Palestinian subjected to this treatment I would hope for much more than meaningless threats. We'll take it as read that you support this carnage, shall we? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM Dave, Still no comment on why this only happened when Jeremy Corbyn was voted leader? An inconvenient significant fact maybe? No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left. Political extremists are notoriously intolerant. Asking why is inviting speculation. The fact is that there have been a stream of complaints emanating from Labour and the acknowledgement that there is a serious problem. That is my case, and it is proved. You suggest that other parties are at least as bad, but there is no evidence for that. There are no streams of complaints from them. Your assumption is based on nothing but preconception and prejudice. No evidence at all. All the evidence points the other way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: bobad Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM list of actual cases of ethnic cleansing and mass murder that have and are still taking place Lol.....you must stop trolling those anti-Semitic propaganda sites - it's making you look like one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM Steve, . Keith is a walking farce. Leave him to it. Same old abuse Steve. Can you actually reply to or challenge anything I have posted? No. I have proved my case and proved you wrong again. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 16 - 11:37 AM Jim, Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement. Good luck with that! I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless. How are you getting on with that? Your claims are just a joke Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Dec 16 - 12:50 PM Ah, OK. Thanks, Keith. It is mostly about the far left then. Like Naz Shah? I guess the Labour party have nothing to worry about seeing the far left of the party are a tiny minority. I suppose it could be 'rampant' with the far left but as they are not indicative of general Labour policies it would be unfair to tar the whole party for the views of a few. Oh, hang on... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:19 PM Incidentaly, while I was looking up Naz Shah's politics I made some interesting discoveries. Have you looked up her career and life story? Makes fascinating reading she is a much braver person than you or I will ever be. The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines. This lovely character writes a column for the Stun on Sunday, has been acclaimed by the Torygraph as one of Britain's leading political bloggers and describes his own policies as "Thatcher on drugs". He also states that his credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves. Shah has more integrity in her little finger than this parasite has in his whole body. Still, it is becoming an education is this so thanks for getting me off my arse and making me look things up. I always suspected that this story had for more too it than anyone has yet said on here. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Dec 16 - 01:22 PM Anyone who thinks that Naz is "far-left" clearly never came across the likes of some of the buggers I consorted with in the 70s! 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM Who said Shah was anything Dave? She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission. She attributed it to her own ignorance and says she now knows better. You asked me to speculate on why this issue has come to prominence. That is all I did. My case is that it is an issue for Labour, not why. The Labour leadership agree with me, but Steve and Jim think that they know better. How silly that makes them look! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 16 - 03:54 PM Dave, The other one was that the person digging up dirt on her was blogger Paul Staines. I suppose that is what bloggers do. I do not read them. The Labour leadership said she had made anti-Semitic statements and she admitted it. I am sure you could find some blogger saying anything if you wanted to. I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Dave the Gnome Date: 11 Dec 16 - 05:37 PM No Dave. The complaints suggest that the problem is mostly with the far Left. It was not me that said that was it? So if the issue is mostly with the far left then why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? Surely, if anything, it should be only rampant in small section of the Labour party, IE the far left. Yet, as you say, 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. Not doing too well really are we? So are there any examples of the 'far left' being antisemitic? My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party. I though I had made that quite clear? I am puzzled as to why you keep responding if you do not know. We are surely, therefore, at an impasse on this route with nothing left to discuss are we not? On the other topic, of course we can find anyone saying anything if we look hard enough. It is especially easy to find someone saying what you want to hear. I seem to remember someone once setting great store by credible sources. This man is far from credible. By his own admission my credibility was damaged by his enthusiasm for drugs and raves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Dec 16 - 06:35 PM "She made some anti-Semitic statements according to the Labour leadership and her own admission." Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Hope you said your prayers this morning. And you still haven't quoted the words she uttered that you regard as antisemitic. Nighty night! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:44 AM Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila. Found out how bulldozers dig mass graves yet Jim? DtG 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? As you did not respond to Keith A's statement - who said that Naz Shah was extreme left? The answer of course is nobody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:26 AM Dave, why are people saying it is rampant within the Labour party I wonder? No-one is or has said that Dave. Naz Shah is not of the far left So what? 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. and even that is disputed Disputed by who Dave? Just you three I think. Can you quote anyone else disputing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM Dave again, My question, as stated many times, is why it is an issue for the Labour party Why indeed. It is though. Steve, Yep. People who you don't trust as far as you can throw them. Except when it suits you. Hypocrisy of the highest order. I trust them on this. Why would they lie? Is your case that they are lying Steve? Why would they lie that it was anti-Semitic if it was not? You are just spouting bollocks again. You have no case at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM Britain is to adopt a definition of antisemitm from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Some points, " Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions" Steve, you were careful to accuse some "pro-Israel lobby" and not Jews of controlling government, but I think you could be caught by this definition. "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. " Jim and Steve again. "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. " You have done that many times Jim, but you are still safe from prosecution in Ireland until they adopt the definition too. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM Israel is still not the Jews and some of its greatest opponents are Jews Now does that fit into any definition? "Ah! back to one of Jim Carroll's hobby horses Sabra-Shatila." Not a hobby horse, but interesting that you should describe the massacre of 3,500 human beings as such No qualified and quantified accusation - no crime No response to facts, no argument Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition? I can not tell. Also, Keith I don't know how others feel about it, but you are now repeating long discredited statements for the umpteenth time If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement. Good luck with that! I also asked you for an example of accusations you claimed have been found groundless. How are you getting on with that? Your claims are just a joke Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 16 - 08:42 AM Jim, does your post mean that you disagree with the definition? Israel has created a situation that there is no longer w workably consistent definition, so as far as I am concerned - hatred of and discrimination against Jews is what we have left. Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime has directly led to the rise of antisemitism by painting a target on every Jew on the planet. "If that is true, produce one example of a discredited statement." Where to begin - may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that? Until you or anybody quantify and qualify the charges against Labour there is no case to answer - common sense as well as common justice. Your claims without charges are what is a joke - I have asked you to provide an example of where this has ever happened - you have declined to answer (though you might have cited the McCarthy Senate trials (or even their equivalent 17th century witch trials) Your lack of proof and accusing the Jewish members of parliament of being silent sums your case up perfectly - you have no interest in the Jews - your support is for Israeli terrorism - that is your definition of antisemitism Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM Israel's behaviour in claiming the the Jewish People are responsible for the policies of the Israeli regime Made up shit Jim. Israel has never claimed any such thing. may be at your insistence that Labour has been proved to have a serious problem of antisemitism in its ranks - how many times have you claimed that? Err....the Labour Party claimed that about itself Jim! I just repeated their own claims. 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. |
|
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. |
|
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 - 09:29 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 - 09:37 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM AL MA HAWIL MAGADAN |
|
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 - 02:51 PM YADANA |
|
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 - 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: Raggytash Date: 12 Dec 16 - 04:11 PM Sadiq ....................... not Sadique .......... and this idiot wonders why no one takes him seriously. |