BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

"No member of the IDF carried out any massacre in any refugee camp -"
A bit 'Titanic' - that one Teribus
The fact is the so many lies have been told by those defending this massacre that nobody knows for certain who did the killing
One thing we know for certain is that Israel facilitated and assisted it (many thanks for giving me the opportunity to make that point again - happy to oblige at any time)
"Truck loads of bodies were claimed but only about 3 people died"
Keith, just out of interest - I don't for one minute expect a response to this, but why did you find it necessary to lie so stupidly about Jenin?
You appear to have acquired some sort of a "lying implant" that makes you fo it automatically
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:41 AM

Jim,
So Helen Shapiro is "repeating propaganda" that was being spouted by traumatised and wounded patients she was treating in the hospital -

No. She was an early 60s pop singer.
Nurse Ellen Siegel did not treat any such victims in her hospital in the heart of the camp.
On the second day they were visited by a film crew, the Red Cross and an Ambassador. No-one was aware of any massacre then. The first she knew was when she left on the morning of day 3.

are you dismissing the word of a Jewish nurse because you are an antisemite?

I do not dismiss her word. I accept her journal as an accurate account. It supports Israel's version of events. She testified to the Kahan Commission.

The finally agreed figure from Jenin was 53 Palestinian dead, most of whom were civilians

That has been disproved. It was the original lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:49 AM

Wiki,
"On April 7, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat suggested to CNN that some 500 Palestinians had been killed in the camp. Five days later, when the fighting stopped, PA Secretary Ahmed Abdel Rahman told UPI that the number was in the thousands, hinting, along with other Palestinian figures, that Israel had snatched bodies, buried Palestinians in mass graves and under the rubble of ruined buildings, and otherwise conducted on a scale compatible with genocide."
Stories of hundreds of civilians being killed in their homes as they were demolished spread throughout international media.[8] Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, and official totals from Palestinian and Israeli sources confirmed between 52 and 54 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers as having been killed in the fighting."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

Bloody Nora.


The war crime (which is what it was in my opinion) was facilitated by the Israeli regime. Without the IDF holding the area and surrounding the camps there would have been no massacre. Did I say that Israeli troops actually went in and did the killing? No I did not. Did Hitler go into concentration camps personally in order to expedite the Holocaust? No he did not. Was Hitler's regime guilty of a Holocaust war crime? Yes it was. Was the Israeli regime guilty of a war crime over those massacres? Well I think it was. Following the outrage, Ariel Sharon was forced to remove himself from office of defence minister. He was found to bear personal responsibility for what happened and he was defence minister in that Israeli regime. Clear enough for you, Teribus? You can argue all you like as to whether you think it was a war crime but nit-picking over who actually went in and did the killing, a matter about which there is actually no disagreement, is not part of that argument. It's just evasion.

Cue Keith coming in with his "decent democracies" idiocy...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 06:05 AM

" 52 and 54 Palestinian"
Hat's what I said - you lied - you said three
And yoiu continue to lie tabout Helen Seigal - what wa a nurse doing not traeting patients during a massacre - polishing her toenails?
An afterthought to Teribus's sinking ship response.
The fact that the Falangist witnesses disappeared while in Israeli custody indicates that, as bad as the known facts are, we are almost certainly seeing only the tip of a much larger iceberg
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:24 AM

Duuno about you Steve, but I only respond to this because I've been brought up to believe sick animals are in need of care and attention.
I think it's time we put them in their baskets and let them get some rest, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:29 AM

" Did I say that Israeli troops actually went in and did the killing? No I did not." - Shaw

The following is yours isn't it Shaw:

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:38 AM

Steve,
The war crime (which is what it was in my opinion) was facilitated by the Israeli regime.

"Facilitated implies that the massacre was intended and there was collusion.
That has not and can not be proved.
The IDF facilitated the militia to deal with fighters in the camp, a legitimate operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
Hat's what I said - you lied - you said three

Fair enough, but I was making a point about the lying not the exact numbers.
It was lied that a massacre was committed and eye witnesses lied that they had witnessed it.
Just like the lies told about bodies dumped off the Marmara and of Israeli involvement in Sabra Shatila.
These people lie about what they have seen and what Israelis do.
They can not be believed without verification.
There was no massacre at Jenin.

And yoiu continue to lie tabout Helen Seigal - what wa a nurse doing not traeting patients during a massacre - polishing her toenails?

I do not lie. I refer to her journal.
She was treating casualties of the fighting. She was not aware of there having been a massacre until she left the hospital on the morning of day three.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:46 AM

"Fair enough, but I was making a point about the lying not the exact numbers."
No Keith - not "fair enough" - you lied and you are quick enough to evade facts by accusing me of lying
Here you have been caught red-handed and downright stupidly protesting about someone making up casualty figures -and what do you do - you make up casualty figures
You really couldn't make that one up, it is so stupid
I suppose you were too young to have script-wrote for the Goon Show - that would have been a classic!!
"These people lie about what they have seen and what Israelis do."
The Israeli regime lies about what they do - so do you
"They can not be believed without verification."
Neither can Israel or you be believed without verification - neither have provided any verification that can be trusted - both of you have lied prodigiously
"There was no massacre at Jenin."
Stop creating smokescreens - you raised Jenin as a diversion
There is no question that Sabra Shatila took place and Israel did what they did
Please stop smearing the word of a Jewish nurse that was there - whatever you "refer to" you make a point of distorting to suit your own particular agenda - you have done this far too often to be trusted.
"Facilitated implies that the massacre was intended and there was collusion."
To facilitate can equally mean that it made possible the massacre - which is a fact - without Israeli collusion it could not have happened
Whether they planned it in advance is indicated by the Israeli remark that
''We asked the Phalangists to leave,'' said the colonel. ''We don't need anyone to do the job for us"
I have no inttention of allowing you divert away from the main facts, which are, The Sabra Shatila Massacre was a Falangist/Israel joint enterprise - Both were equally responsible, planned or unplanned.
Every abdication is that the outcome was known in advance - so senior officer could possible have believed that letting loose a bunch of armed notorious fanatics whose leader had recently been assassinated on a mass of unarmed people they believed to be responsible for that assassination could possibly have had any other outcome
What do they have for senior officers in the Israeli Army - Captain Mainwaring clones??
The fact (that you have yet to respond to) that the Falangist witnesses who were due to give evidence mysteriously disappeared while in Israeli custody shortly before they were examined, is indicative that we have only had a slight whiff of this rotten carcass of a massacre.   
"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. "
Haven't really been following this, but if that's all Steve said, he is on the nail -
It is a terrible war crime to massacre hundreds (thousands even), whether you actually get the blood on your own hands or help someone else get the blood on theirs on your behalf
Whoever paid for the hit on Kennedy, Lumumba or Allende is every bit as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger
You have a nasty dose of evasive pedantry - again, in order to wiggle away from the main points - again
It's become as habitual a tactic as Keith's "real historians", or phantom witnesses or "decent democracies"
You are nothing if not predictably unimaginative, in fact, "nothing" is probably enough
For you, the war is over Tommy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:52 AM

Blimey, Teribus. And that from a man who says that Keith declaring that Taylor and Clarke were fraudulent was just making a passing reference. Give over, will you. The Israeli regime was responsible. Sharon's head tolled and he was the defence minister. You have no point to make at all. You are nit-picking for the sake of it. Why don't you have a pot at Keith instead, who has just rewritten history?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:54 AM

The bell tolled for Sharon but it was his head wot rolled.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:03 AM

Stop creating smokescreens - you raised Jenin as a diversion

No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie.
You just believe it all without question.
Do not be so gullible.

There is no question that Sabra Shatila took place and Israel did what they did

Of course there is.
No decent democracy holds Israel responsible.

Steve, Sharon could and should have been aware of the risk of a reprisal massacre. He lost his job for that. He was not treated as a war criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:11 AM

It doesn't mean he wasn't one. Blair and Bush haven't been convicted of war crimes but I know what I think. Neither has Assad. Plenty more. I won't go on. When you're in power it's amazing how easily and quickly the ranks can close round you. Decent democracies my arse. Totally irrelevant, and you can't define what you mean by that vacuous expression. Maybe it means countries that Keith thinks agree with Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:14 AM

Just in case you'd forgotten Shaw:

shaw's WHEATCROFT Saga

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:16 AM

What is totally irrelevant Shaw - is your opinion - on anything.

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

"No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie."
No you didn't - you were caught out in a hilarious porkie which I shall be chuckling about for some time to come
Your feeble excuse is nearly as hilarious
"Do not be so gullible."
Do not be so stupid as to believe that nobody other than a moron is going to abandon documented evidence on the basis of propaganda shite like "Israel's Enemies"
You read like a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Right-Wing Dictatorship Party"
You are a propagandist - there really is no room for people like you on a debate forum - go book a ***** hall and make your pitch
"He was not treated as a war criminal."
Not by Israel he wasn't - he was awarded for his efforts by being elected Prime Minister
He was protected from charges of war Crimes by an American veto at the U.N.
Wonder how many "innocent" Nazi war Criminals died in South America because they were never caught!!
As for your "No decent democracy" garbage
It has been revealed from secret British Government papers released into the public domain after thirty years that arch-Thatcherite, Francis Pym slated Israel for their actions at Sabra Shatila (though he did fall short of fully blaming them)
Even with this cowardly ommission in mind, this particular "decent democracy" kept his limp-wristed criticism locked away from public gaze for three decades
That's how decent these "decent democracies" that you are now basing your entire case on are
They won't even let us see the slightest criticism of Israel because "they don't wish to get involved in Israel's domestic policies"
Your mate seems to have returned to the W.W.1 trenches - safest place for him short of a 'Home for the Vulnerable Unthinking', I would have thought.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:11 AM

Steve,
The Israeli regime was responsible.

It was indirectly responsible, because it was the controlling power, but it played no role in the massacre.

Sharon's head rolled and he was the defence minister.

Again, only indirect responsibility.
Wiki,
"Israeli Defense Forces were indirectly responsible for the massacre since IDF troops held the area.[65] The commission determined that the killings carried out by a Phalangist unit acting on its own, but its entry was known to Israel and approved by Sharon."
"The commission also concluded that Sharon bore personal responsibility[65] "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge [and] not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed".

That is Israel's version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Jim,
"No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie."
No you didn't - you were caught out in a hilarious porkie which I shall be chuckling about for some time to come

No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie, along with the example of the Marmara. The exact figures do not matter, only that there was no deliberate killing of civilians or body hiding. They lied about that in both examples, and undoubtedly about Sabra/Shatila too.

Francis Pym slated Israel for their actions at Sabra Shatila

He did not.
"Francis Pym, the British foreign secretary, cleared Israel of blame for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, where, over two days in September 1982, a Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia killed as many as 3,500 people.
Having invaded Lebanon up to Beirut, Israel allied itself with some Christian militias fighting in the Lebanese civil war. During the massacres, the Israeli army had surrounded the camps and fired flares at night to illuminate the dark at the request of the Phalangists.
But Pym, writing an initial assessment in September 1982, said Israel had been guilty only of "incompetence, miscalculation, overeagerness to clear out the remaining PLO and unwise dependence on undisciplined militia".
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/british-national-archives-releases-classified-government-documents

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

I think you are on a winner there, Steve. Indirect responsibility is still responsibility. There are many people in prison for being indirectly responsible for something and so they should be.

If the weather there is as good as here I reckon you should chalk today up as one of the better ones. Have something extra special for tea and open another bottle of Morrisons best :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:44 AM

"That is Israel's version of events."
Quite
What a pity the facts don't bear out that claim - any of it
All a load of bollocks Keith
How many guilty criminals have stood up in the dock and said "I didn't do it?
You have no case, you never had a case and while yo act like a megaphone propaganist, you never will have a case
You have had a library's worth of evidence and what do you come up with
"ISRAEL'S ENEMIES"
I think they need another lawyer - don't you
Send for Perry Mason
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:51 AM

Dave, Israel accepts indirect responsibility, so no argument about that.

Jim, you claimed to have "verified facts."
You have produced not one!
You have produced no evidence to challenge Israel's version of events.
Israel's version fits the known facts much better than anything you have put up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM

Just read Keith's 10.11am post again, folks. It's a masterclass in how to contradict yourself all over the place in a few short lines. Go and have a lie down, Keith.

"Passing reference" my arse, Teribus. A blatant fib, made over two threads, that he thought he was going to get away with, having forgotten that some of us actually read papers. He's been doing it again this last few days with his "massive over-representation" tosh apropos of two court cases involving travellers. He did it with his cultural implant nonsense. I thought you were a bit of a history buff, Teribus. Well you haven't learned much from Keith's history, have you! 😂

Might take your advice, Dave, though it could be an uphill struggle as Mrs Steve thinks we shouldn't be drinking on Mondays. Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

What has she got against Mondays!?!?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:24 AM

Today it is dull out here on the Connemara, the same could be said for this thread.

I'm off too buy some soda bread on which to place my smoked salmon this evening. I don't know why but smoked salmon is quite cheap in Ireland and some of it is smoked over peat fires giving it a delightful flavour

Might have a pint ot three as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:37 AM

Bugger. So if I'm not drinking it'll be just me. Unconscionable. I shall be having a word. The roast lamb last night was utterly sublime and there's enough cold left to go with a jacket spud and some purple sprouting out of the veg plot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!
perfect way to end a wet, windy day
You have produces sweet fuck all, you never have and you never will. As well as a magnificent display of your vitriolic racism, you have added atrocity- denial in spades
Should see me though my old age comfortably
Have a good war, you two - watch out for the 'whizz-bangs
Jim Carroll
PS Don't tell any more lies otherwise you on't get your nose through the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:00 PM

What a pity that, for all your supposed education and your career as a teacher, you do not seem able to read Shaw.

"he thought he was going to get away with"??? Keith A acknowledged the error within an HOUR and corrected his omission. Thought he was going to get away with what for an hour you lying Prat?

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime." - Steve Shaw

Yes it is a terrible war crime Shaw only problem is that the IDF did not massacre hundreds of civilians" as you claimed they did - Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.
And another attempt to save face after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time
Grow up and stop being such a vicious git
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the galley - whoops - what a giveaway!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:51 PM

So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation? You are, as ever, missing the entire point by a country mile but, if you do believe that the correction would have been forthcoming anyway, I just happen to have a business idea. All you need to send me is a few bank details...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Just read Keith's 10.11am post again, folks. It's a masterclass in how to contradict yourself all over the place in a few short lines

There are no contradictions there.
Say what you think is one and I will explain it to you.

apropos of two court cases involving travellers.

It was four cases out five.
Ten convictions against one.
For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation.

He did it with his cultural implant nonsense.

The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me.
I said I believed it because of the credibility of those it did come from.
It is still highly credible and certainly not "nonsense"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!

Ho ho ho is right!
Not one of your much vaunted "verified facts" was ever produced.

Apart from misremembering the final death toll at Jenin (mostly gunmen. I might have been right for the civilians) identify one statement of mine that you can challenge.
More than one if you like.
Good luck with that Jim!

after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time

I somehow missed each such incident.
Please jog our memories if such a thing really ever happened.

If anyone claimed that IDF ever "massacred hundreds of civilians" that is indeed a lie.

Dave,
So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation?

I was happy to concede the discrepancy, but there was no deceit and I had already given the full quote. Wheatcroft had the same view as me so I did not need to misrepresent anything, and I did not.
Steve tried to make something out of nothing because he had lost the argument.
Again!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Back to the racist attacks on ethnic minorities
Safer ground there - they can't fight back
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"...
It doesn't matter if the Archbishop of Canterbury told you to say it - it is your opinion and it makes you a raving racist - I already said,that, didn't I - doesn't matter - it's well worth repeating, especially in contact of your making the same thing about Travellers
May as well put your third historical statement - you can claim three of a kind then

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
YOUrR THEME TUNE, I PRESUME
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:21 PM

Cause and effect. Those guilty of these crimes were tried under a new law. Why do you think that new law was introduced? Just for fun maybe? Or perhaps it was to cover cases such as these. Why has it only been used those few times? Maybe it has served as a deterrent or perhaps it only ever intended to catch these cases which may have otherwise fallen through the net. Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders. Those more open minded realise that such facts can be indicative of many things other than the right wing agenda driven demonisation of people.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:23 PM

So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 03:00 PM

Jim,
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.

Utter and complete fact Jim, and they were all Left Wing and mostly Pakistani themselves, so all your name calling is futile.
It is all you can do when you lose.

Dave,
So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

I would need someone to draw it to my attention and object, as Steve did.

Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders.

Please quote me saying such shit, or withdraw that ridiculous accusation Dave.

Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation.
There may be many possible explanations, but it is a massive over-representation and that is all I ever claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 04:13 PM

Yes, it is shit isn't it Keith. Just like your 'it is all I ever claimed' shit. Throw enough shit and some will stick. And you have thrown more shit than the chimps at Chester zoo.

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

I and many others can see through your shit and have had enough. Go and play your games with someone else.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:40 PM

Of course Keith wouldn't have issued a correction had he not been challenged. It would have stood for ever more, and that was his clear intent as he'd made the false claim in two threads. Clear intent to deceive. It isn't as if the original article was complicated or difficult to interpret, Dave. Dead simple. "Taylor rather vulgar and Clark largely fraudulent" became "Taylor and Clark fraudulent." That is no accident. Even Keith isn't thick enough to do that by accident, and he did it twice. Still, it must be OK because Teribus, nitpicker-in-chief with the rest of us, excused it as being a "passing reference." 😂 And, Bill, I didn't say that the IDF carried out the slaughter, as much as you'd like me to have done. All there in the thread!

By the way, Dave, I prevailed on the wine front with Mrs Steve. A heavy day in the garden shifting one ton of hardcore, one ton of gravel and one ton of topsoil led me into a deserving state. Washed down the cold lamb, jacket spud with lashings of butter and purple sprouting beautifully. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:03 PM

Well Gnome, talking about missing the point and misrepresentation, as these things seem important to you between trips to the pantry. Here's the exchange once again:

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

I am quite prepared to discuss things that have happened. I have not interest in discussing points based on conjecture. What we can see clearly is that for three years now Steve Shaw has deliberately misrepresented straight facts about the exchange quoted above by telling barefaced lies and that seems to be a point that you Gnome have missed by a Kerry Mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 01:44 AM

No matter how often you cut and paste it, Teribus, the fact remains that without Steve's intervention the false claim would have remained. Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 02:46 AM

Not going to argue about conjecture, but if it is conjecture you want, your premise is doubtful as the relevant passage was subsequently quoted in full five times later in that thread, who is to say that that would not have happened at least once without Shaw's intervention.

Still doesn't get round Shaw's subsequent deliberate barefaced lies and misrepresentation which it appears does not matter to you at all, but as a proven lying bastard it does tend to colour my opinion of anything he posts.

On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about.

Your pal Jim Carroll tried to say that the Israelis secretly disposed of 3,500 bodies by burying under a sports stadium they constructed in Beirut in 1982. Carroll misrepresents these claims as what he calls verified fact citing eye-witnesses who by their own accounts if you read them saw nothing of the sort. Other easily demonstrated discrepancies regarding this fairy-tale of Carroll's are:

1: Nobody was taken to the Camille Chamoun Stadium until after the massacre by the Christian Phalange Militia had ended.

2: The Israelis constructed nothing on that site at the time. The Stadium had been destroyed by them as the PLO used it as an ammunition dump.

3: Destroyed in 1982 the Stadium was not rebuilt until 1997, when it was completely rebuilt by British and Lebanese engineers - In that total rebuild no bodies, or human remains were unearthed - very strange that considering there were supposed to be 3,500 bodies buried there in haste and in secret in 1982.

4: The stadium was further improved and reinforced so that it could withstand an earthquake of 8.6 on the Richter scale in 2015, that work involved extensive and very deep ground works, and yet, as in 1997 no bodies, or human remains were unearthed.

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium as described by Jim Carroll and that the whole story was a fabrication, a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:08 AM

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium

Why are you telling me? I am not even involved in that discussion.

My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false.

Do try to focus on what people are actually talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:11 AM

"he'd made the false claim in two threads" - Steve Shaw

Good heavens Shaw caught out in yet another lie.

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

The above was the first direct quotation from Geoffrey Wheatcroft's article in the Guardian by Keith A of Hertford and it is an accurate quote in all respects. PRIOR TO Keith A quoting that passage from Wheatcroft's article, there had been a link to the complete article posted by a GUEST. AFTER Keith A's post there was no other mention of this article or reference to it by anyone else on the thread that was subsequently closed on or round the 18th December, 2014.

So Shaw in which two threads did Keith a according to you make these false claims? (My bet folks is that Shaw will ignore this question and go desperately quiet on the subject - We may however be regaled at length on the subject of what next will be projected from between the cheeks his arse)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:19 AM

"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation."
I think it's time we put a stop to this hate campaign ourselves
When the moderator said "don't feed the troll", this is exactly what we are doin by responding t this behaviour.
We should really know better, after all, it's not as if it hasn't happened before.
Keith started his hate crusade back on the Muslim thread - he took the behaviour of a handful of criminals who happened to be Muslims, deliberately misused a term that had appeared in the press, "over-representation", and applied the actions of those handful of criminals to claim they represented the culture of the Muslim People of Britain, a million and a half of them - he even went as far as to invent a "cultural implant" to cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community.
He has maintained that stance since, though he has invented a secret army of "witnesses" (who he refuses to quote", who, he claims, put the idea into his head.
AS far as I am concerned, that is pretty extreme stuff.
The last time anybody went so far as to publicly make a cultural link to a serious crime wa when the Nazis came up with cultural theories about the Jews - we know the outcome of that one only too well.
Not long after this, we got into an argument about the Irish Famine, in the course of which a historian was produced who had explained that, after Independence the new Irish State revised its education system to include the parts of history that had been omitted from the schools under the centuries of British rule - that of the Irish people who acted independently from the behavior imposed by the British controlled administration and had fought for self expression and self - government, the blossoming of Irish literature a movement now referred to in Ireland as 'The Irish Renaissance'.
Keith leaped on the explanation (by historian, Christine Kinealy) and transformed it into "brainwashing" - all of a sudden we had an entire young population of Irish schoolchildren who had been "brainwashed to hate the British", though Keith as never at any time able to explain how that "hatred manifested itself - the Irish, in general, don't "hate" anybody, (though they do have Keith's problem with Travellers that they have recently taken serious steps to rectify).
Now he's started seriously on Travellers.
He has taken the criminal behaviour of a minute number of criminals who happen to be Travellers, has picked up a term used by the press, slave-like conditions", and invented a "massive over-representation of slave-owning within the Travelling community"
Nobody, not even in the sewer-press, has ever made such a claim - this is entirely out of Keith's sick mind.
The incident is now a thing of the past, the press and society in general has forgotten the incident and it is remembered only as the act of a few criminals.
Keith has taken to it like a duck (or should that be a leech) to water and is now using it to denigrate and smear an entire community who really do have enough problems to cope with.
It is only a matter of time before he comes up with another "cultural implant" theory to back his claims
I think our moderator is right - by "feeding the troll" we are giving him the soapbox he needs to spread his hate and distrust.
I detested Margaret Thatcher every bit as much as a detest people who deliberately spread cultural and racial hatred and fear, but her saying "oxygen of publicity" is a very useful one.
Please, let's STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.
Jim Carroll
I have little doubt that this will be passed off as "lies" and "a personal attack", but every single word I have written is verifiable and tucked away in varios parts of the archive of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:26 AM

"My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false."

And the error was acknowledged and corrected within an hour of it being pointed out - something that you seem to fail to acknowledge. What else is patently obvious that you appear to be blind to is that your pal Shaw since that correction was made has constantly and deliberately misrepresented and lied about there being any correction or any admission of error.

HERE IT IS AGAIN GNOME

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

Your pal Steve Shaw is a lying bastard Gnome, there it is displayed above for all to see, and everytime Wheatcroft is brought up that will be posted to set the record straight. After all you did say that you weren't too keen on people misrepresenting things didn't you? Or, like your pal Shaw, are you a liar and a hypocrite too?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:45 AM

There was no deception or intent to deceive.
I had no need to change anything he said, because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

That was why Steve was reduced to making something from nothing.
It is what he does when he loses.

Dave, you accused me of saying something I never had or would say.
That is your different morality.
You lied about me in an attempt to further your case.
That is your different, shitty morality.

I have not played games.
It is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct.
Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:49 AM

Jim, you said you had "verified facts" to back your case on Sabra.
So where are they?

You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.

That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:53 AM

Dave,
Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

No I do not. I said I would need my attention drawn to it, liar.
How else would I know it needed correcting otherwise, liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:11 AM

because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

So, what was my case then, Keith?

No lie. You said that you would need your attention drawing to it to change it. I said that unless Steve had drawn your attention to it it would have remained as a false statement. How is that a lie?

Oh, and good to see that you are keeping to your statement that you never resort to personal abuse.

Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

And you have the temerity to say you don't play games. You say one thing and mean another all the time. Chances are you will still deny personal abuse even in the light of the above.

At least we have drawn out the real Keith and now everyone can see you for what you really are.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:13 AM

"You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.
That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again."
Which sums up everything you post to this forum Keith - you are using it as an opportunity to spread your hate and mistrust.
You have no interest in debating or sharing your ideas - it is about "winning and losing"
Nobody "wins or loses" and only you even consider it as a reason for debate
I'm sure that the masses and masses of information you have provided have swayed everybody to your arguments and ideas - of course they have!!!!!!!
Maybe you will find more satisfaction in Euro-vision or one of the dancing programmes
There really is no room for "winners and losers" here.
I'd like to think I have dragged your sick campaign out into the open, but the pair of you have done that far better than any of us - Teribus with his blustering arrogance and you with your frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of foreigners and those from a different culture
I seriously hope that your recent vitriolic behaviour will mean you will never be taken seriously again on this forum.
You really are something - the pair of you
Jim Carroll