BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling.

By my definition it is trolling and goading, and like what was once posted here by some hypocrite:

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign."
I accepted his resignation was not accepted
Even if I had been wrong - it was not a lie - I did not invent it.
You used pedantry to absolve his deadly incompetence
THat, as far as I am concerned, is lying.
"You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila "
Nope - I said "up to - the figure is not known thanks to Israeli cover-up
and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium."
That is a lie - I said some of the bosies were buried there - I alsop pointed out that ther were mass graves in and around the camp and that some were found thrown by the roadside - it's all there in the links.
At no time have I ever claimed that all the bodies were buried under the stadium
You continue to lie
"Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria."
Nope - Keith turned my "sniper ammunition" into "a few sniper rifles"
The ammunition was licenced and sold
You claime first, nothing ws sold, then no licence was ever issued, then it was issued but rescinded, then it was for sporting equipment, then the order came too early to be used by the Homs snipers, then teh ammunition that was sold was the wrong size for Assad's weapons (no size of ammunition was ever specified)
Your whole defence of this sale had been a constant string of lies and inventions)
"That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial."
I know nothing whatever of the execution of Crozier - my only reference to summary executions was to provide evidence that they happened.
You are lying - I persisted in nothing regarding this
If pigs started to fly and you did provide evifdence of anything you said, I would have been incredibly stupid to ignore it
Do you want to lik me to my persisting in this or anything I have been guilty of when evidence was provided?
Now fuck off and provide some evidence - any moron can invent a list
And then you can provide us with proof of the dishonesty of "proven liars
"Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list"
I would like you to start - you have provided nothing but unqualified accusations
Your long list is a lie, but it falls well within your capabilities to prove me wrong
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:09 AM

Hah bloody ha. So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind. You and Keith are the two most led-by-the-nose ideologues it's ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling. I would estimate that all bar about four people who read these benighted threads welcome it as a leavening of the bread (now there's an idea - I might come back to that). Clearly, your understanding of trolling is about as hazy as your understanding of antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:55 AM

"I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything"

You are a slave to ideology Shaw - I am NOT, so I am not surprised that that is the way you'd think.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.

And posting your food snobbery on a thread about the Labour party is what Shaw?.......HYPOCRITE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:06 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Well, Teribus, quoting Naz Shah as if she was some ex cathedra-talking guru is very amusing. She is a left-wing Labour MP and I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything. But she suddenly speaks with the sword of truth - when it suits you. Israel is not Jews. Israel is a country containing a quarter non-Jews as well as a good number of Jews who detest what their government does. Antisemitism is attacks targeted at just Jews, Billyboy, no-one else. Naz Shah was reacting in a stupid way to the actions of the Israeli regime. She did not say that she hated all Jews and wanted them all moved to America. In fact, she didn't mention Jews at all. She did not say that the Jews in Israel should all be moved. Now that would have been antisemitic. And she was being totally out of order but she was not at all making a serious suggestion. I can't call her stupid for grovelling, because the grovelling had the desired effect of saving her skin. I dislike Naz Shah and she has a bloody long way to go in order to prove that she can be a serious politician. But she did not make an antisemitic remark, and all those people in the party who say she did are saying it because they are scared of not saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:51 AM

You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Oh, he definitely knows what most accept as anti-Semitism but he has to continue the charade of insisting on his own invented definition otherwise he would have to own up to his guilt which, just like Livingstone, he doesn't have the moral courage to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Well let me see what we have then Jim?


Jim Lie #1:

You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign.

You can tell us all now that when, after this had been pointed out to you that you still persisted in stating that he had been forced to resign - that being untrue and you knowing it to be untrue meant that you were deliberately lying.

Jim Lie #2

You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila refugee camps in 1982 and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium.

You can now acknowledge that your figure of 3,500 is far from being factual is only at best an unverified "estimate" and that during extensive work done at the Camille Chamoun Stadium the remains of not one single body has been uncovered.

Jim Lie #3
Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

Admit that there are no records of the British Government selling any weapons to the Syrians, and that despite being asked and given every opportunity to do so you have not in five years come up with any proof to substantiate your claim that they did.

Jim Lie #4
That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial.

Despite being given links to his Court Martial papers and a full account of his arrest, trial and subsequent execution you still persisted with your lie.

Jim Lie #5
That Brigadier Frank Percy Crozier summarily executed sentries who fell asleep on duty.

Blatant lie, only two such executions took place in the entire course of the war and they took place in Mesopotamia a theatre of war in which Frank Percy Crozier never served. Both men were tried and found guilty by Court Martial.

Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list.But the five given above will serve to keep the pot boiling for the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:13 AM

Reuters yesterday,
"Labour lawmaker Wes Streeting told Livingstone on BBC news late on Tuesday: "Your poor judgment, your crass remarks and your lack of apology brings the Labour Party into disrepute."
Fellow Labour member of parliament Luciana Berger, who has suffered anti-Semitic abuse, said the party had reached "a new low".
"Why is anti-Semitism being treated differently from any other form of racism?" she wrote on Twitter."

Steve,
Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said.

I do have time for most senior Labour people.
Labour found them both guilty of ant-Semitism. Why should anyone care what your very biased view is? Your view of anti-Semitism has been proved wrong. The definitions you rejected are accepted by everyone else. You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Jim, you specified Fisk and Siegel.
They saw nothing that contradicts Israel's version.
If that is not a FACT, quote them!

Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did

That would be your "verified facts" again.
You could not produce a single one, remember!!

That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party

True. This lot could never be elected once, never mind three times in a row!

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus

You have told lots about me Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:58 AM

Jewish members of the Labour Party are right to chide Livingstone and those in the party who wouldn't expel him for "enabling" anti-Semites to support Labour. But Livingstone, who in his pigheaded obstinacy didn't apologize, even after being found guilty of all charges and receiving his minor sentence, is doing us all a favor. (Some in Labour actually believe he's causing trouble out of envy that the much-less-talented Corbyn unexpectedly became party leader.)

The crass offensiveness of his tirades has made many more level-headed voices on the left admit that Jews, like any other minority, have a right to define for themselves what's abusive to them, and that while Zionism's merits and flaws can be discussed and disputed, ascribing any connection between Zionism and Nazism is anti-Semitic. The outrage Livingstone has caused on the British left has forced even his old friend Corbyn to limply repudiate him, and this case is now reverberating far beyond.

Anshel Pfeffer - Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus
Then that makes you a liar£hat was originally the suggestion of Jewish Norman Finklestein
Bit stupid to call anybody a "lying git" with your current track record
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:28 AM

"I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was anti-Semitic" - Shaw

Naz Shah "My words were anti-Semitic"

Extract:

Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States.

Labour has now reinstated the Bradford West MP, who in her first interview about the controversy blamed her "ignorance".

"I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," Ms Shah told BBC Radio 4's World At One.

In a Facebook post in 2014, before she became an MP, Ms Shah shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".

That Shaw is denying the right of the internationally recognised Sovereign State of Israel to exist - Anti-Semitism according to the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism and according every single political party in the UK.

Bottled it Shaw - didn't mention Jews - "relocate Israel into United States" - Just who the f**k do you think she meant relocating to the United States by shifting Israel to the United States you lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

"Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events."
Stop doing this Keith - your arguments went down the pan years ago
The only people who witnessed the events were the killers, the survivors and the Israelis who facilitated the massacres
You have dismissed the survivors as "liars", Israel "disappeared" the killers who were prepared to give an account of what happened and Israel is the accused and must be judged on that fact
What we have to go on are the independent researches of those who reported on the matter, the independent enquiry which found Israel "probably responsible for the massacre" and simple common sense.
Even Istreali soldiers testified as to Israel's guilt.
You have already said that you are just putting Israel's case - fine by me - it puts everything you claim into perfect context "they didn't do it because they say they didn't do it"
Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did - your shite about "decent democracies" staying silent is just that - shite
If they were half decent they would not stay silent and watch as Israel is "unfairly accused of what that they are - what kind of decency is that?
You will continue to ignore this last point - also fine by me.
Like all of my postings - none is for your benefit - I don't waste time with closed and empty minds
The usual bollocks about you bizarre 'guilt without charges' Labour antisemitism
More distortions about your voting Labour - you boasted of voting for Blair - a war criminal who narrowly missed being indicted for same
That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party
No sign of Teribus - he must be still looking for my "lies" and those of the "proven liars" - so he may be some time,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

By the way, Keith:

"Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism."

Not so. No-one has "defended antisemitism." Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said. She was stupid, but she said a stupid thing about Israel, a country, and she didn't mention Jews. Her remark was a reaction to the behaviour of the Israeli regime. Not antisemitic, whatever she said in order to save her career. I can't respect that. At least Ken has stuck to his guns. The pillock hasn't done either himself or the party any good but he's a tough sod, unlike Naz, and he hasn't wavered.

I don't defend Ken and I don't defend Naz. They have both been idiots. Being an idiot doesn't mean that you're antisemitic, as Jim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:03 AM

I love talking grub. I'm getting inspired. We're having chicken arrabbiata tonight (often have it with salmon but we've had that this week already). I like big chunky rigati pasta instead of slippery little penne which I've never been that keen on. Reminds me of those nasty little pots of cold congealed "pasta salad" that supermarkets sell. Shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot tomorrow (bought at Gloucester Services, though their carrier bags have Tebay on them!) with tons of crackling and all the trimmings.

Seems like your speciality is chicken, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

Try a Festive Jaloise .............. Sprout Pie

Par boil sprouts, mix with thinly sliced onion, red & green bell peppers, chestnuts with a cheese sauce in a puff pastry case.

Sounds bloody awful but is in fact wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

No cooking for me today. Glorious weather and...

Wait for it...

Haworth beer festival:-)

Just had Yorkshire smoke house kippers (not Whitby but next best) with scrambled egg for breakfast. Going to try some Goan chicken soup for lunch then bus to Keighley and on to Haworth. Then, who knows:-) Probably get a steam train back to Keighley around tea time.

Off to Ingleton again tomorrow with Grandsons and Daughter in law.

We are going to try a variation on your orzo dish on Monday. Daughter I-L is piscavore veggie so going to use fish pie mix instead of pancetta.

Wish me luck for all events :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars"

Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events.
If that is not true, quote something.

Steve,
I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic.

She and the party leadership agreed it was anti-Semitic.
That is enough for me.

You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark.

Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism.

. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial.

Not true at all. I am an ex-Labour voter who would like to be able to vote for them again.

Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride.

How would I know what goes on inside the party?
I read what insiders say, and repeat it here.
What is wrong with that?

You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong.

You are making shit up now. If I have ever expressed either of those views quote me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 07:13 PM

Next week for two nights I'm cooking for seven or eight people. Some of them will not eat pork, prawns or mushrooms on religious grounds, and one of them is a non-piscivore vegetarian. Now there's a challenge. I'm planning a big pasta bake for one evening, gambling slightly on the fact that some veggies will eat parmesan and mozzarella in spite of the calf rennet. I won't countenance substitutes. It consists of layers of cheese, orecchiette pasta and tomato sauce (left chunky - none of that passata smoothie for me!) with a hit of chilli and basil, baked in the oven. It's one of Italy's favourite dishes. For the other evening I'm doing a bean stew, mixed beans with whatever I have to hand but definitely including cannellini and borlotti, maybe a chickpea or two, with tomato, onion and chilli, with lemony ciabatta dumplings. Plenty of parsley in there. If they don't like it they can bugger off!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:36 PM

By the way, that's called tricolore salad, red, white and green, the colours of the Italian flag!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:35 PM

Bloody brilliant recipe here, Dave, gleaned from a pack of Sainsbury's Vittoria cherry tomatoes (which have been very good lately). The quality of the cherry toms is paramount. This would do for a lunch for two, but if you also have a pot of hummus with something to dip you have a meal for two in front of the telly. It's just assembly, no cooking.

Peel two ripe avocados and slice them into strips. Two's quite a lot but one isn't enough, but I love the buggers, so what the hell.

Take one ball of cow mozzarella (buffalo is too sloppy and wet for this recipe). Don't buy own brands. They're shit. Buy Galbani. Drain and slice it into thin pieces the size of a 50p.

Take 200g or a bit less of your loveliest cherry toms and cut them in half.

Get a fancy serving dish, shallow, and arrange the slices of cheese and avocado sort of alternating. Don't sweat it. Throw the tomatoes on top in casual fashion. Sprinkle a sparse quantity of freshly-ground pepper over it all. Easy tiger. Tear a few fresh basil leaves on top, then splash on top the finest extra virgin oil you can get your hands on (recommendation: Marks and Spencer Tuscan - ten quid but you will not regret it and it will last for ages). It's the tastiest grub I ever eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:04 PM

I didn't ask you to debate what is and what isn't antisemitism. I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic. You've lost courage, haven't you. You know that you'll be shot down whatever you say. Have you actually got more respect for her than I have? I think she was a bloody idiot and I think she grovelled in order to save her own skin. I can't respect that. Typical bloody politician. But I want to know what YOU think was antisemitic about her comment. Man up, Keith. You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark. Stupid, yes. Lousy timing, yes. Antisemitic? Definitely not. If you disagree, let us know precisely why. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial. Yet it's the Labour Party, and only the Labour Party, that you ever invoke in order to confirm your prejudices against its members accused of antisemitism. You don't even invoke yourself. Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride. You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong. You hate the Labour Party but when it says something that fits your agenda it suddenly becomes a paragon. Your arguments are expedient, disreputable and highly dishonest, not to speak of of remarkably shallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 05:38 PM

Ah, OK. Got it now then. Someone who is in the club says it is so, so therefore it must be true. Funny thing is, I remember someone on here calling someone else a thick c**t. I guess if someone said it, it must be true. As to why they actualy said it, well, why should I research it for you? You can read what Mudcat people say as easily as I can.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:08 PM

"Priceless Jom, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". "
As devoid of an answer as that eh?
That you don't accept facts that don't suit you doesn't make them lies - I thought every moron knew that
You have produced nothing to prove they are wrong - you never have and you never will
Even if I was wrong would not make me a liar, it would make me wrong
Only a mean-minded twat would suggest otherwise
Is that the best of my "lies" you can come up with   
I reckon that proves you a liar, doesn't it you have produced nothing but denials and buffoonish mistakes - where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars" - where is your proof that are - if you claim they are prove liar you must have the proof - where is it?   
You've obviously spent the day searching for my lies and come up with - zilch!
You are a pathetic liar - all racists are.
You and Keith are a matched pair - no brains - no knowledge - no principles - no honesty and no self respect
If you had the latter ytou wouldn't spend so much time humiliating yourself by behaving like a schoolyard bully
Adults don't do that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:14 PM

Steve,
No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith.

No.
I will not debate with you what is and is not anti-Semitism.
There is an accepted definition. You dispute it, but what is your opinion worth?

The Labour Party accepted that her comments were anti-Semitic and she herself agreed, so who cares whether you do or not.

Dave,
Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

I only know what Labour people tell us Dave.
He was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute through his anti-Semitism.

Why should I research it for you? You can read what Labour people say as easily as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:00 PM

You somehow missed the other definition of collaboration, Teribus.

Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to realize or achieve something successfully.

I wonder why that is? Whether the Nazis were serious or not the Zionists worked with them in the hope of achieving something sucessfuly. Still doubt that? Maybe you need to look up the Haavara Agreement. As I say, I don't have a lot of time for Livingstone but to nail him for something he just ain't done will not do any good for anyone.

Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:12 PM

"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies - Jim

1: At no point at all in his time as Secretary of State for War was Kitchener ever forced by anybody to resign - Not opinion, simple, well documented FACT - To state otherwise is a deliberate lie even although it may have been stated by someone writing in ignorance.

2: In 1914 when the British went to war, they had the smallest Army of all the combatant powers. An army geared to fight a mobile war, it was that capability that saved the BEF as a fighting force throughout the latter part of 1914 and much of 1915. They only had "field artillery" and the one single arsenal in the British Isles at Woolwich made two types of shells for the artillery arm of the British Army High Explosive and Shrapnel, the production of the latter was greater than the former because that is what the Army said it wanted - NOT Kitchener - who held no direct Army Command during the course of the war. Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War to do two things:

(a) Raise Britain's first citizen Army - Which he did successfully - Britain ended the war with an army ten times the size it was in 1914.

(b) Put Britain on a full time war footing in order to keep Britain in the War and keep it's armed forces supplied with whatever they needed. It was Kitchener who did the spade work that Lloyd George later took the credit for.

3: As Kitchener did not directly Command any military formation in the field he can hardly be guilty of crassly killing anybody. Yes it was a mistake on your part to state that he had been forced to resign and it would have remained as a simple mistake had you acknowledged that and corrected what you said - You did neither. Instead you maintained the line that he had been forced to resign and that, in the light of the fact that your mistake had been brought to your attention is where your simple mistake becomes a deliberately told lie.

SABRA-SHATILA:
Your claims are based upon the unverified stories told by proven liars as part of a propaganda campaign. Your claim is that a mass burial site is located under the only sports stadium in the area. A site that was in ruins at the time of the massacre, there was no construction effort on the site at the time you allege the bodies were buried. The site subsequently was the scene of massive ground and construction works in 1997 and again in 2015 - NOT ONE SINGLE BODY OR ANY HUMAN REMAINS AT ALL WERE UNEARTHED AT THE SITE - Tells me that there was no mass grave as YOU claim - another myth, another lie that you cling to like a limpet to a rock.

Lebanese Army and the Red Cross recovered and buried the bodies of those killed at Sabra-Shatila in 1982, they did so under the gaze of the world's press, UN Observers, the Lebanese Government and a host of other international bodies. Those were the only bodies found and they came to nowhere near the 3,500 ESTIMATE that you claim and lay at the door of Israel. By the way Carroll any ESTIMATE is NOT A FACT. To present it as such is a deliberate lie.

"Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies"

Priceless Jim, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". Only an ignoramus persists in repeating something that has been comprehensively demonstrated as being untrue as you have done "Ad nauseam" and expects it to be believed. Repeat something that is known to be untrue Jim means that you are telling lies.

"Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap."

There are two examples given above. Your boast -"I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's" - were that true Jim, old son, you would have done so already. For years Keith A has asked you to supply just one example and you have pointedly failed to do so spectacularly at each time of asking. I challenge you to do so now - and my bet is that no such example will be forthcoming all we will get will be some name calling, accusations of being every "....ist" in creation, accusations of being guilty of every "....ism" in the book, along with your usual empty bluster and bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:10 PM

No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith. And cut out the stupid and vacuous "you people." That's an expression often used to talk about "the other." "These people..." Heard the apartheid regime using that expression quite a lot. Why am I not surprised that you resort to it? By the way, I agree with Jim that Ken has been bloody stupid. But over the decades he's been a good man who has occasionally resorted to stupidity. As I said, it can't be easy behaving like an angel when you have a hawkish and hostile media, Thatcher and Blair at your throat for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve
Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism?

If that had been all he said, yes.
It was not. He tried to use that to defend Shah's undisputed (except by you people) anti-Semitism.
His defence of anti-Semitism brought the party into disrepute. The party found him guilty.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as anti-Semitic

We all know what she said.
The party found it anti-Semitic. That is good enough for me. You did not. That signifies nothing!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:05 PM

"So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger." - DtG

OK then Gnome how did this "collaboration" manifest itself?

Collaboration:
NOUN
1: The action of working with someone to produce something:

2: Traitorous cooperation with an enemy:

Give us examples of this collaboration. There was none, and it is offensive and anti-Semitic in the extreme to state that any Jewish organisation would collude with the Nazis in the deaths of the German Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:53 AM

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

See Keith's post of 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM, which I am sure you already have but, hey, anytime there's a bone for you to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:25 AM

"He is charged with anti-Semitism."
And it is very noticeable that nobody here is prepared to discuss that "historical nugget - which has a fair amount of truth attached to it.
Personally, I think was stupidly insensitive to bring it up in the present atmosphere, but stupidity isn't antisemitism.
Livingstone allowed himself to fall into the hands of the Anti - BDS crowd, but nobody has proved antisemitism against him or anybody - stating historical facts isn't antisemitic
The clause in the definition that states that it is antisemitic to compare the action of the Israelis with the Nazis has always intrigued me - what if they are behaving like the Nazis, as many, including Jews have accused them of?
Can you have a definition that makes truth unacceptable?
If you can - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:10 AM

Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism? " And I remind you again that no-one in the party has said that Ken Livingstone is an antisemite. Charged means nothing on its own, does it? I note that you ignored my post describing Ken Livingstone's legacy over decades by virtue of his fights for equality for all minorities and for an end to discrimination, and how he worked extensively with London's Jewish community. I suppose that when you are relentlessly confronted with Blair/Thatcher/Murdoch briefing against you you may learn how to be occasionally undiplomatic.

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as antisemitic (careful now - as I recall, she didn't even mention Jews) and I'll tell you why you're wrong. Don't bother telling me what some committee or definition says - I want to know what YOU think. That would be a first. You have GOT your own brain, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:09 AM

"and mainly the Trotskyite left:"
Trotsy was a jew - the Trotskyist movement was founded by Jews
All left movements are basically international and non-racist - most were founded by Jews
On the other hand, German right wing multinationalism sent six million Jews to their deaths - Capitalist industry in Germany used Jews as slave labour.
Antisemitism at its most extreme is a phenomenon of right wing politics
So when a a supposed supporter of the Jewish people who refuses to condemn having Parliamentary Politicians described as putting their politics before their culture and who persistently indulges in one of the basic no-nos of defined antisemitism, attacks the left - where does that put him politically
I would say on the side of those who carried out the Holocaust.
I don't suppose you'd care to comment on any of this honestly, would you Bobad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Ah, but you see Keith, John Mann didn't use the specific word "antisemite" so Shaw will worry that bone for a couple hundred posts now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Steve,
I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Of course you have.
Labour MP John Mann.
Mann told Livingstone, "you are a lying racist"
Asked if he thought Livingstone was anti-Semitic, Mann said, "Yes he is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-suspended-from-labour-party-for-antisemitism-and-hitler-comments_uk_5721fbd9e4b0a1e971cb2513

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Dave,
there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying.

If he had stated that historical fact in isolation he would not have been found guilty of bringing his party into disrepute.
He is charged with anti-Semitism.

He tried to use that historical nugget to justify Naz Shah's anti-Semitism. That is why he has been further suspended while expulsion is still being considered following outrage at the leniency showed.
(Outrage from within Labour, like all the complaints of anti-Semitism over the last year or so.)

No other party have had any of these issues.
Just Labour.

Steve,
re not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer.

Not true. I did not start this discussion, and have only reported what has gone on within Labour. None of it has come from me.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic.

I have never said it was. I have actually said it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:41 AM

Oh, and of course the word is baiters and I was waiting with bated breath for you to tell me so. Unfortunately that's the way it's written in the quote I copied so I'd advise you to aim you rectification at the Huffington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:09 AM

Those are the words of your one of your fellow Labour Party members, described as one of Labour's most senior former officials. I agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

The word is baiters.

When I criticise the actions of the Israeli government, I'm not pretending anything. As I've said once before in the last 24 hours, I don't need anyone else to tell me what I'm really saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm really saying. It's amazing that people like you, Teribus and Keith, who come here with an extremely lopsided, inflexible and narrow agenda, always want to ascribe that same attribute to everyone who doesn't agree with you. Well why not cast out the plank. I like my country and hate my government. I support the right of Israel to not only exist but to prosper in security and peace. But I hate what the Israeli government does in many areas of endeavour, and, as I live in a free country, I shall say so if I like. Now I want you to dissect this post of mine (without pretending that you're a mind-reader) and tell me, without resorting to fatuous definitions or appealing to authority, if YOU think I've said anything antisemitic, and why you think it. Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government: THIS

the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left: THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:18 AM

You're a bad-tempered probably very old sod, I know that, Teribus. Take a chill pill.

You're not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer. Labour, travellers, Pakistanis. Maybe you're secretly a member of AIPAC. That's what they do to anyone who dares to criticise Israel in any way. Smear, smear, smear. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic. I'm still waiting to hear why I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

I find it quite funny when right wing racists, homophobes and the terminally intollerant start to call people Nazis. Just shows the limit of their imaginations :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:24 AM

"The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin"
Surprise me and begin
Failure to do so will prove you a liar
You wandt a pissing cometition between who tells the most porkie- you and your lying mate - bring it on
I have never ever told a lie or deliberately attempted to deceive on this forum - ifI thought it necessary to do so I really wouldn't bother participation - you people are the only ones to have declared to have won something - go count how many times Keith has crowed "I won - you lose" - seven times on this thread alone.
This is a debating forum - not a 'who had the biggest willie' competition.
Lying is immaterial, as far as debating with you pair of brain-deads is concerned is totally unnecessary - your stupidity, ignorance and strutting arrogance makes lying a waste of time - you do our job by destroying your own crass arguments quite adequately.
"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies
I put your arrogantly put claims that The Sabra Shatila Stadium could not have been used as it was in a state of ruin down to your crass ignorance - I have never claimed it was lie
Similarly, your stupid ignorance in asking what the Falangists were doing at the airport - not lies, simple dogshit ignorance.
Your particular list is endless and going back as far as I can remember.
Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies
Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap.
Keith has now gon viral on lying - go see his latest efforts on the 'Andrew Neil thread, where he claims the reverse on something he busted a gut on about Assad - mindlessly stupdi lying - not mistakes - giant porkies you could choke an elephant on
Yo want to claim I lie - prove it, don't allude to it with slime-ball accusations
You pollute this forum with your arrogance and your spectacular ignnorance
Keith
More meaningles opinions without either evidence and foundation
Meanwhile - back at the ranch
MASSIVE CHRISTIAN OVER-REPRESENTATION IN SEXUAL ABUSE AND PEOPLE TRAFFICKING
Do not ever again accuse Muslims or Travellers of being "over-represented of anything like this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:07 AM

So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger. Not that I have any time for Red Ken and I believe he is a liability, but not for the reasons bandied about at the moment. In that respect he was just stupid. The point being that both you and Keith are applying once law to yourselves. "It was not me, I am only repeating what other people have said." and Livingstone, who was only repeating what other people have said.

On to much pleasanter things. Had a wonderful day with the Grandsons yesterday. Walked from our house and in minutes the youngest and I were on a farm track leading up the valley. Apart from much complaining about the smell of muckspreading he was really enjoying himself. He had control as he was carrying the whistle and compass :-) We made it all the way up to Lund's Tower and ate our sandwiches sheltered from the wind behind the parapet of said folly before making our way down another track through the hamlet or homestead of Bent. When we returned we had a bit of a rest and then all of us went for a car ride up to the second tower, Cowling Pinnacle, and walked the half mile to, yet again, Lund's Tower! Off to the baths today. This grandson minding business keeps you fit if nothing else :-)

Cheers

DtG

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:41 AM

"You have yet to produce one lie I have told" - Jim (Kitchener) Carroll

You have got to be kidding haven't you Jim. The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin. The number of lies that you have knowingly and deliberately told litters the threads of this Forum to such an extent that I don't have to search for any of them, I just have to wait until the next one comes along (You ARE that dependable) - in that respect you're rather like that Geyser, "Old Faithful", in Yellowstone National Park.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

You people need to remember that the accusations against Livingstone and others come from Labour not Mudcat.
We are just the messengers.

Huff Post yesterday,
"One of Labour's most senior former officials has urged Jeremy Corbyn to step aside in the wake of the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone.
Mike Creighton, Labour's Director of Audit and Risk Management until last month, said that it was "incomprehensible" that the former Mayor of London had been given "a slap on the wrist" despite being found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute.
Creighton, who effectively ran the party's legal, governance and disciplinary compliance team, said that it was time for Corbyn to consider "retirement" following the decision to suspend Livingstone for another year for his remarks about Hitler and Zionism."

"The former staffer, who has never before urged Corbyn to step aside, also claimed that he had advised the Labour leader to make a strong speech condemning anti-semitism last year at the height of the row, but was ignored."

"Creighton's remarks came amid strong condemnation by deputy leader Tom Watson and other Shadow Cabinet ministers of the ruling on Tuesday night by the party's disciplinary panel, the National Constitutional Committee (NCC).
With fresh calls for a re-think, HuffPost UK understands that both Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham will also criticise the decision."

"Deputy leader Watson said he felt "ashamed" by the NCC decision, declaring "my party is not living up to its commitment to have a zero tolerance approach to anti-semitism".
MPs including Shadow Cabinet ministers Keir Starmer and Barry Gardiner, Yvette Cooper, Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting all united to criticise the failure to expel the former Mayor."

""All charges brought against the odious Livingstone were found proven. And yet, unaccountably, the punishment didn't even fit the least of these charges…"

"He said that the failure to expel Livingstone meant that "anti-Semitism has air to breathe in the Labour Party".
"And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government have gained ground today."

"it gives carte blanche to the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left – to raise their evil standards on the parapets of the Labour Party. Apparently with Jeremy Corbyn's calm indifference."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-should-go-says-mike-creighton-former-labour-head-of-risk-management-tom-watson-anti-semitism-claims_uk_58e4b71fe4b0d0b7e1663303

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:28 AM

Out of order Shaw??? Far from it you lying bastard - YOU old son have been caught out - YOU and your pals have YET, after four years and countless unfounded allegations, been unable to give one single example of either myself, Akenaton or Keith A lying. HELL you haven't even been able to counter with any sort of cogent argument anything that we have stated.

By the way Mr Teacher Sir - THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, please pay attention in the hope that that will penetrate your thick skull - in that belief "Red Ken" is living in a f**kin' fantasy world (His usual residence as most people have known full well throughout his time in public life) - instead of trying to be clever try reading the link that your pal Jim put up - it doesn't say what he thinks it does. As usual as you did in ALL the WWI threads you argue from complete and utter total ignorance - you don't have a soddin' clue - which is why on all those threads you, and your pals, got absolutely hammered and were made to look stupid. Perhaps you should stick to munching broccoli and as you want a musical dimension I've got a suggestion for your next CD Title - "Blowing out my arse" - as that would appear to be the orifice you do most of your communicating through.

Points of comparison between you and your mates and "National Socialists"??

- Your adherence to ideology over everything else.
- Raging intolerance to any other view than your own.
- Your belief in your superiority, which fosters a totally erroneous faith in the fact that you think you are never wrong (Other more honest individuals admit their errors and mistakes - You do not)
- You blatantly lie and fully expect to get away with those lies believing that by constant repetition it somehow becomes true and accepted as fact (Straight out of Joseph Goebbels bag of tricks that one Shaw).
- Your belief that mob rule is justified in order to get your own way.

Like all bullies you and your pals squeal like stuck pigs the second there is a "push back". OK for Jim to accuse people right, left and centre of being Nazis, but the minute that you and your pals find yourselves on the receiving end it's an indignant cry of "How dare you!!!" - I tell you how I dare Shaw - With remarkable ease you lying GIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:51 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."
You have yet to produce one lie I have told and your politics are far nearer National Socialism as anybody on this form than any other on this form - you racism runs neck and neck with theirs - your being forced out of your closet s probably the reason you have gone viral on your insulting everybody again.
I don't lie - prove I do.
Zionist association with Nazism seems to be a historical fact - as much as the Catholic Church's association with Italy's fascism.
I'm not suggesting it was part of their philosophy on the part of the Zionists - pragmatism seems to have played a part, at least, that it the impression I have gained from the litle reading I have done on the subject
Let's face it, Brtian appeased Hitler up to the point that they had no alternative - quite a lot of that went beyond paragmaitism - go read Rothermere's newspapers or the Right Club publications or see members of the Royal arselicking "Herr Hitler"
New Germany was to be "the bulwark against Bolshevism" as a famous cigar-smoking politician once remarked.
Denying all these facts, as Teribus and Keith have, alters that not one iota
Once more you arrogantly refuse to link any of your claims - perhaps you should have stayed in the pub - that sort of shite goes down better around closing time.
As for lies - your mate has just surpassed himself on the other thread - made my week
Jim Carroll