BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:36 AM

There was no mention of rockets. No mention of a quid pro quo with the Palestinians in Gaza. It was the Israeli regime of that time justifying the withdrawal to its people by telling them that it would make them safer. Didn't turn out well, did it? Perhaps if they'd withdrawn with good grace, not demolishing the settlements on their way out and not putting the place under a state of permanent siege and blockade, the Israeli people really would have been safer. You simply haven't answered my challenge to your comment, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:40 AM

"hat's bullshit?
You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor - go looke at the maps to see how they relate to any Imperial agreements.....
No bullshit there.
Israel is an agressive expansionist State who wishes to turn te area into a Jewish State and eject the Arabs
They haven't managed yet, "numbnuts" because, despite U.S. support, they are bound by International law and by pressure from fellow Jews, who are as much opponents to their behaviour as the rest of us are
Many Jews remember the Haolocause and take the attitude that many survivors did - "never again - not to anybody"
Israel has its own internal opponents - yesterday, Benny the Blusterer made public announced that he was closing the official Israeli News Agencies and replacing them with his own.
Are you seriosly suggesting that the Palestinians are as well armed and well trained as the Israelis and they have nuclear weapons tucked away in their back pockets?
Gross stupidity - even for you
The blockade has blocked essential supplies for building, is has slowed down essential medical shipments, it has never been anything other than an attempt to starve the Palestinians into submission - numbnuts
"Defence" has been an excuse for mass murder ans oppresssion for as long as there has been conflict - the Nazis used it as an excuse for Lidice
"officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start."
So would recognising the Palestinian's right to their land and homes
As I said, the Israelis are the aggressors in all this and they have bene from day one.
The British ships steamed out of Palestine to the sound off hand grenades being thrown into occupied houses by 'freedom fighters'
As David Ben Gurion said "We stole their land".
He also instructed that the Arabs should never be evicted
As I said GO LOOK AT THE MAPS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:40 AM

"hat's bullshit?
You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor - go looke at the maps to see how they relate to any Imperial agreements.....
No bullshit there.
Israel is an agressive expansionist State who wishes to turn te area into a Jewish State and eject the Arabs
They haven't managed yet, "numbnuts" because, despite U.S. support, they are bound by International law and by pressure from fellow Jews, who are as much opponents to their behaviour as the rest of us are
Many Jews remember the Haolocause and take the attitude that many survivors did - "never again - not to anybody"
Israel has its own internal opponents - yesterday, Benny the Blusterer made public announced that he was closing the official Israeli News Agencies and replacing them with his own.
Are you seriosly suggesting that the Palestinians are as well armed and well trained as the Israelis and they have nuclear weapons tucked away in their back pockets?
Gross stupidity - even for you
The blockade has blocked essential supplies for building, is has slowed down essential medical shipments, it has never been anything other than an attempt to starve the Palestinians into submission - numbnuts
"Defence" has been an excuse for mass murder ans oppresssion for as long as there has been conflict - the Nazis used it as an excuse for Lidice
"officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start."
So would recognising the Palestinian's right to their land and homes
As I said, the Israelis are the aggressors in all this and they have bene from day one.
The British ships steamed out of Palestine to the sound off hand grenades being thrown into occupied houses by 'freedom fighters'
As David Ben Gurion said "We stole their land".
He also instructed that the Arabs should never be evicted
As I said GO LOOK AT THE MAPS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:16 AM

The disengagement plan was not Sharon's it was the idea of Sharansky's and it involved Jewish settlements in Gaza and in the Northern part of the West Bank. Initially the Israeli Government was dealing with Palestine National Authority.

From the Washington Post - 10th August, 2005:

Who favors the withdrawal?

Public opinion polls show that around 60 percent of Israelis and virtually all Palestinians support the withdrawal.

Who opposes the withdrawal?

Israel's right-wing and religious parties are most opposed to the withdrawal. Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a member of Sharon's Likud Party, resigned in early August in protest, the highest ranking Israeli official to do so. He said that withdrawal does not require reciprocal concessions by the Palestinians. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers who object to the withdrawal have been excused from duties.

What will happen after the evacuation?

The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) will administer Gaza while Israel will continue to control its borders, coastline and airspace. The biggest change for Palestinians will be that the tight travel restrictions that Israel has imposed within the territory will be lifted. The Palestinians hope to build apartment buildings on the site of the demolished Israeli homes.

How will the withdrawal affect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The Israeli government expects the withdrawal will reduce Palestinian attacks on Jewish citizens. The Israeli Foreign Ministry says that the withdrawal shows that Israel is willing to make significant concessions for peace. The PNA, while welcoming the dismantling of the settlements, says that the withdrawal is a unilateral move designed to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live.

ALSO

Statement by PM Ariel Sharon - Address to the Fourth Herzliya Conference - (December 18, 2003)

The Road Map is a clear and reasonable plan, and it is therefore possible and imperative to implement it. The concept behind this plan is that only security will lead to peace - and in that sequence. Without the achievement of full security - within the framework of which terrorist organizations will be dismantled - it will not be possible to achieve genuine peace, a peace for generations. This is the essence of the Road Map. The opposite perception, according to which the very signing of a peace agreement will produce security out of thin air, has already been tried in the past and failed miserably.  And such will be the fate of any other plan which promotes this concept.  These plans deceive the public and create false hope. There will be no peace before the eradication of terrorism…

I take this opportunity to appeal to the Palestinians and repeat, as I said at Aqaba: It is not in our interest to govern you. We would like you to govern yourselves in your own country: a democratic Palestinian state with territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria and economic viability, which would conduct normal relations of tranquility, security, and peace with Israel. Abandon the path of terrorism and let us together stop the bloodshed. Let us move forward together toward peace.

We wish to speedily advance implementation of the Road Map toward quiet and a genuine peace.  We hope that the Palestinian Authority will carry out its part. However, if in a few months the Palestinians still continue to disregard their part in implementing the Road Map - then Israel will initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians.

The purpose of the Disengagement Plan is to reduce terrorism as much as possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security. The process of disengagement will lead to an improvement in the quality of life, and will help strengthen the Israeli economy. The unilateral steps which Israel will take in the framework of the Disengagement Plan will be fully coordinated with the United States. We must not harm our strategic coordination with the United States. These steps will increase security for the residents of Israel and relieve the pressure on the IDF and security forces in fulfilling the difficult tasks they are faced with. The Disengagement Plan is meant to grant maximum security and minimize friction between Israelis and Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 17 - 08:54 PM

Regarding the reasons for the withdrawal from Gaza:

In October 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further:

The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.

Not an awful lot to do with rockets, eh, Teribus? It would be nice if you could desist from making things up as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 17 - 08:11 PM

"Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza on the premise that rocket attacks would cease - simply put they didn't."

Would you care to verify that this was a "premise?" That is not my understanding of the real reason for the withdrawal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 17 - 06:52 PM

Taking and occupying territory in a defensive war for defensive purposes, especially since a state of war is ongoing, is legitimate and legal. The taking and occupying of territory in an offensive war, such as is currently the case in Crimea, Cyprus, Vietnam, Tibet, Indonesia, Morocco etc. is illegitimate and illegal. Of course not a peep about these illegal occupations is to be heard from Carroll and his ilk. Anyone care to speculate why that is the case? I'll give you a hint - no Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:30 PM

Jim Carroll - 11 May 17 - 12:26 PM

Complete and utter Bullshit.

1: And how may civilians have died at the hands of Israel - how many Palestinians have lost their home - how many Palestinians have been publicly humiliated

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza on the premise that rocket attacks would cease - simply put they didn't. Don't know about you Carroll but there is not a single sovereign state in the world that would not react with extreme prejudice where they subjected to thousands of missiles being purposely aimed at their civilian population. To prevent civilians dying all Hamas had to do was to prevent rockets being fired into Israel - simply put they didn't therefore responsibility for all civilian casualties and fatalities inside Gaza rests with Hamas. Hamas are also responsible for any perceived humiliation.

2: The Palestinians are fighting to protect their homes, their land and their way of life"

No they are not, the reason they are fighting according to the declared aim of their charter is to destroy the internationally recognised sovereign independent state of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish population of that country.

3: "they are fighting against" - against a highly trained, heavily armed nuclear facilitated aggressive state
They have no standing army to speak of, no training and very few weapons.

In which case numbnuts if what you say is true then this war would have been over, all done and dusted, fifty years ago. The degree of restraint that the Israelis have shown is remarkable, considering the unprecedented levels of provocation they have been subjected to.

4: The are fighting a war of national defence against a ruthless extremist regime intent on driving them out of the territory
The Palestinians are doing nothing the Israelis didn't do to gain their right to statehood.

According to the Palestine Authority in their address to the United Nations they are "fighting for" a Two-State solution. A lesser two-state solution to the one the self same Arabs of Palestine were offered back in 1947 - the two state solution they rejected, preferring instead to go to war, a war they lost.

5: The blockade has now been in existence for a decade
How do you expect them to react - with petitions.

Israel has not been the only country enforcing a blockade. There have been numerous occasions when Israeli and Egyptian authorities have intercepted weapons, explosives and rockets being smuggled into Gaza from Syria and Iran.

How do I expect them to react? Well they've tried war for 70 years and got nowhere, perhaps they should try peace and co-existence. Kicking Hamas and their agenda into touch and officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:18 PM

Israel offered to return the Golan Heihts for capitulation to the sttus quo
Guess why the offer was not taken up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 17 - 02:20 PM

Israel offered to return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace. That was nine years ago. Guess who rejected the offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 12:26 PM

"how many missiles have been fired into Israel from territory supposedly under the control of Hamas? "
And how may civilians have died at the hands of Israel - how many Palestinians have lost their home - how many Palestinians have been publicly humiliated
According to the official Israeli observers, 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers have died from rocket fire in ten years - Israel forces slaughtered more than that in a half day during their last bloodfest
The Palestinians are fighting to protect their homes, their land and their way of life against a highly trained, heavily armed nuclear facilitated aggressive state
They have no standing army to speak of, no training and very few weapons.
The are fighting a war of national defence against a ruthless extremist regime intent on driving them out of the territory
The Palestinians are doing nothing the Israelis didn't do to gain their right to statehood.
The blockade has now been in existence for a decade
How do you expect them to react - with petitions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 10:36 AM

The occupation of the Golan has a great deal to do with security. Since the Golan Heights have been occupied how many attacks on Israel have been launched from Syria - Don't strain yourself too much Jim the answer is none.

While on the subject of the Gaza Strip. Since unilaterally withdrawing completely from the Gaza Strip how many missiles have been fired into Israel from territory supposedly under the control of Hamas? Again don't strain yourself Jim it runs into thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 17 - 10:35 AM

Occupation of The Golan Heights has SFA to do with security

Of course it has. As you have been told, artillery can fire on Israeli villages and farms from there, and actually did so until Israel took it.

No country wins a war, refuses a return of those who fled, oppresses the population of a nation and continues to occupy

The Soviet Union did in 1945.
Again, Syria is still at war with Israel. When they decide to negotiate an armistice no doubt the Golan will form part of the negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 09:06 AM

"In what way would such an action have helped to protect the British mainland? "
It wouldn't - my point exactly
Occupation of The Golan Heights has SFA to do with security and more than the murderous incursions into Gaza has
It has to do with the creation of a monotheistic area free of Muslims
It is recognised internationally as an illegal occupation, which iws what is is
Israel has now taken steps to control their own media - that's how right wing their regime has become
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 06:23 AM

"Maybe we should have occupied The Isle of Man to Protect Britain from the Irish during the Troubles - waddya think?" - Jim at his idiotic best

In what way would such an action have helped to protect the British mainland? You were right - "How stupid can you get?" - with you Jim the answer to that is your stupidity appears to be "Boundless".

Great comparison though Jim Israel and Syria were nations at war with one another. As far as the UK was concerned they were at war with no-one involved in "The Troubles".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 04:13 AM

No country wins a war, refuses a return of those who fled, oppresses the population of a nation and continues to occupy
That is a wat=r crime enacted by a terrorist state
It has been deemed illegal by the U.N. and all your right wing ranting does not change that fact
Israel has no legal right to the Golan Heights
Germany declared war - does that give us a right to rule Germany
Stupid argument
These crimes are being committed against civilians and non combatants a generation after the war ended
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:45 AM

"The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria,"
Israel, iwith its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal is more than capable of defending itself without persecuting Third world Arabs

"With its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal" Israel very nearly lost that war.
There is no defence against dug in artillery firing down from high ground except to take that ground, which Israel finally achieved at great cost.
It was not illegal because Syria had declared war and because shelling farmers is a war crime. Syria is still in a state of war with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:51 PM

"The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria,"
Israel, iwith its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal is more than capable of defending itself without persecuting Third world Arabs
The Golan Heights are illegally held - whatever excuse you care to put up.
Maybe we should have occupied The Isle of Man to Protect Britain from the Irish during the Troubles - waddya think?
How stupid can you get?
Occupying territory and drivin out its occupants is going to heighten tension, not ensure peace
Nessie the Nutter has declared that peace loving Israel will never hand back the Golan Heights
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:35 PM

The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria, which is still in a state of declared war with Israel.
How can it be illegal to hold enemy land during a war?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:09 PM

Perhaps it might be more sensible to ask THE ARABS LIVING on THE GOLAN HEIGHTS to see where they would prefer to live
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 01:56 PM

"Hold a referendum for those who live on the Golan to see what they would prefer"
Sort of like holding a referendum in Mayfair
You can't vote on which Country you live in
Stupid, stupid argument
This land has been stolen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 17 - 01:33 PM

Hold a referendum for those who live on the Golan to see what they would prefer. The question: The occupied Golan should be returned to the governance of Syria tick YES or NO.

Given that choice I am pretty certain the stampede to be slaughtered by Assad would be minimal.

As to you and the UN being against permanently occupied territory acquired by force I note a marked lack of condemnation concerning Egypt's former annexation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem which lasted from 1948 until 1967 when both territories were liberated.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 12:22 PM

That's what the U.N. said Booboo - the GOLAN HEIGHTS is held illegally

Lol, the "UN", well recognized for it's anti Israel bias, offers a lot of opinions on Israel and that's just what they are OPINIONS, mostly initiated by those paragons of human rights, members of the Arab League. And we all know the old saying about opinions, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:46 AM

Alan Myers comes off sounding like a neo-Nazi. This is the kind of candidate the Labour party is attracting. Too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:22 AM

Jim, she made them when she was 16, but she is only 19 now.
She has done the right thing now, but of course it has been picked up as another example.
You may not think the other's statement was anti-Semitic, but the Labour Party suspended him over it.
He is quoted as saying that Israel's government has "billionaire masters." What do you suppose he meant by that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:02 AM

"Jim,, I just copied the Bing search result.
You always avoid linking dodgy claims Keith
The current one has nothing to do with antisemitism - it rightfully criticises Israel and Zionism
The earlier one was a twitter posted when she was sixteen years old - she has apologised and resigned
That just about sums up how much the Labour party is riddled with antisemitism
How pathetic are you going to get in your witch-hunt Keith?
Evil little man
"In June 1967, during the Six Day war, Israel captured the heights. "

That's what the U.N. said Booboo - the GOLAN HEIGHTS is held illegally
Israel has now asked your hero Donald Trump to intervene
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 09:17 AM

Jim,, I just copied the Bing search result.
You could just Google the text on it.

It was not "old news."
One was 11 days, the other 14 hours.


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-student-who-introduced-jeremy-corbyn-admits-racist-anti-semitic-twitter-posts-1620785

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15250825.Anti_Semitism_allegations_lead_to_suspension_of_Labour_Party_council_election_can

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 09:09 AM

In June 1967, during the Six Day war, Israel captured the heights. Six years later, in a surprise attack during what became known as the Yom Kippur war, Syria overran the Golan before being repulsed by Israeli counterattacks. After the war, Syria signed a disengagement agreement that left the Golan in Israel's hands. On 14 December 1981, the Knesset voted to annex the Golan Heights.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 06:50 AM

Permanent occupation of conquered territories and the driving out of the occupants is an offence
Go count the permanent refugees from that occupation and see the scope of the offence
Beside the point anyway - I've no intention in arguing the toss with idiots about something that has been deemed a human rights offence by the U.N. anyway, certainly not with someone who invents information rathrer than providing evidence (any news about those Traveller "Dynasties" or the network of slave-owning sites yet?)
ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of GOLAN HEIGHTS
My point was that Keith deliebrately didn't link to what his "antisemite" said - not antisemitic at all.
Go and invent something else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 17 - 06:26 AM

Wasn't that supposedly "disgusting" invasion of the Golan Heights the result of an even more "disgusting" attempted Syrian invasion of Israel in 1973? IIRC the Syrians invaded Israel from the Golan in what became known as the Yom Kippur War and were successfully repelled by the IDF. The Israelis occupied the Syrian Army's jumping off points as a defensive precaution against any future attacks making it known to the Ba'athist regime in Damascus that land would be exchanged for bi-lateral peace treaty.

As far as I know since 2005 there have been no invasions, "disgusting" or otherwise in the South-West corner of Israel, certainly none in 2016 so in stating the following - "That's exactly what they are doing on the south west coast at the moment. An illegal state, invading peaceful people who have been forced to try and defend their territory." - Yer man H Alan Myers is telling deliberate lies to be swallowed by gullible dupes such as yourself Jim. Israel is far from being an illegal state and to state that it is is anti-Semitic. Officially recognised on May 1948 firstly by the United Nations, secondly by the U.S.S.R. and thirdly by the U.S.A. It would appear that the "H" in H Alan Myers must stand for "Havering".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 05:09 AM

Unlinked again Keith
This is what your unnamed Labour candidate said - not an attack on the Jewish peopel in sight
s I have always said - criticism of Israel has nor becoem antisemitism for the Israelis and their hangers on Antisemitic by definition
Was tehre a reason you didn't link this old news?
Jim Carroll

H Alan Myers LABOUR - EYES LEFT- DURHAM
2 Apr 2016 at 20:11 • 0
The more I learn about Israeli behaviour the more disgusted I am with them. There's no wonder they are hated amongst the Arabs. They are the single cause of the troubles at present.
Remember their disgraceful invasion of the Golan Heights? That's exactly what they are doing on the south west coast at the moment. An illegal state, invading peaceful people who have been forced to try and defend their territory.
And if you say anything against them they cry anti semitism and harp back to the holocaust to curry sympathy Well, the holocaust is exactly what they are performing on the rightful inhabitants of Palestine with the financial support of the US and UK.
The problems caused by "terrorism1 presently are 100% caused by the Zionist leaders of Israel (an illegal state) and their billionaire masters, the Rothschilds.
If you want peace, stop supporting Israel and insist your government does the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 04:11 AM

More reports of anti-Semitism are still emerging.

Durham County Council Labour candidate for Weardale suspended from party following following allegations of anti-Semitism
A LABOUR candidate in an upcoming council election has been suspended from the party over allegations of …
The Northern Echo 11d

Labour student who introduced Jeremy Corbyn admits to racist and anti-Semitic Twitter posts
"As some of you may have seen online, some anti-Semitic, homophobic …
International Business Times 14h

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 04:08 AM

Dave,
Please stop trying to involve me in your fantasies.

I did not fantasise your naming me as someone who needed an excuse for their posts.
My posts were just asking Jim to substantiate his false accusations against me.
Why does that need to be excused?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 17 - 04:06 AM

Rag, if you accuse someone of "lies and deceit" you should be prepared to back that accusation.

You can't because your accusation has no basis in fact.

I remember when you blatantly faked some quotes to reverse the meaning of what the historians had actually said.
I can back that if you like. I have kept the details.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 17 - 03:00 AM

I have told you the point. Whether you chose to believe that or not is completely irrelevant. Please stop trying to involve me in your fantasies.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 17 - 02:02 PM

You're really not very intelligent are you professor. I said I would be on holiday and frankly give a flying fuck about anything you post.

So, given that information, you reply and ask me to give you examples of your lies and deceit. Brilliant really, really intelligent.

I've just logged on to my tablet to check the news and email. We've played music for the past two nights, till very early in the morning and I'm now sitting in a beautiful bar, in a beautiful village, in a beautiful part of the world having a beautiful pint of Guinness.

Did I mention the word beautiful !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 01:51 PM

Dave, why not just tell us the point you were making in those posts?
I think I have it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:54 AM

"A psychiatrist would need a psychiatrist after a few sessions with this suitable case for treatment   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:46 AM

Jesus wept Keith. I have no idea how your mind works but I suspect a psychiatrist could make a fortune out of you. That is the biggest load of paranoiac bollocks I have read for quite some time.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:26 AM

Jim,
Go ask you friend - he made the accusation

Not true.

Dave,
Your reply to Jim about Keith juice was,
"Nah, just a few pints of Hobgoblin. Not sure what Keith's excuse is ."

You identified me by name as the person you were critical of, clearly demonstrating your support for him over me.

WTF has that got to do with me?

Because what you said I needed an excuse for was asking for quotes to support false claims about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:40 AM

Dave, you referred to me by name in one of the posts.

I refered to you by name because Jim asked if I had been on the Keith juice.

Jim accused me of saying things and I requested quotes.

WTF has that got to do with me?

You clearly supported him against me on that.

Did I? When and where? Do you have any quotes to link to?

Now stop wasting all our time looking for meanings that do not exist.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:40 AM

Incidentally
"In one instance the family involved is a dynasty "
This is yet another racist smear
'Connors' is one of the most common names among Travellers - not a "dynasty" just a shared name
There are no reports of other shares of that name being implicated in the crimes of these few
Like all racists - you make it up as you go along
Jeeze - you would have made a fortune as propagandist for the Nazis - just what they needed yo fill their ovens, as it was - they managed between a quarter and a half million based on shite like yours.
You really are the scummiest of the scum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:16 AM

"Tell me Jim what is "Muslim Culture"?"
Go ask you friend - he made the accusation
He also added "Pakistani" which makes it racist
Nuffin to do with me
"In one instance the family involved is a dynasty "
The family in question numbered five people who were settled, wealth enough to live in a mansion and employed mainly non-Travellers in their enterprise.
No other Travellers were convicted so I assume the enterprise becomes equally a settled "over-representation" as well!!
Can you actually verify that this lot "controlled" other Traveler sites, many or otherwise, or is this more shit you have snatched out of the air on the spot (rhetorical question).
Were other Travellers arrested and tried as being accomplices - if not, why not - perhas the authorities, having a well-know soft spot for Travellers, looked the other way.
"Where do you think this came from Jim:"
It was compesed by Dominic Behan - whathas this to do with Keith's "generations of Irish schoolchildren" being brainwashed.
One thing fro certain - you are i9n no danger of suffering the same fate - you lack the essential ingredient
Labour's supposed antisemitism
One more time - the victims of this so-called antisemitism were entitled to go public at any time - no law restricts them just to keeping the matter within the Labour Party
According to you pair of tossers - they did and a year after these accusations surfaced, we still have no idea of their specific nature nor the number involved
We have two people criticising Israel and Zionism - nothing else
NEXT!!!!
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 09:18 AM

Dave, you referred to me by name in one of the posts.
Jim accused me of saying things and I requested quotes.
You clearly supported him against me on that.

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

1: You accused all Muslims of being prone to underage sex becaue of their culture

That is deeply racist

Tell me Jim what is "Muslim Culture"? Now in my travels I have lived and worked with Muslims of different sects and from different countries from West Africa to Indonesia. But we will level out the religious bit and settle on those Muslims who are Sunni, I think that you would find a Sunni Muslim from the Arabian Peninsula has a very different culture to a Sunni Muslim from either Malaysia or Indonesia. But this has been pointed out to you time and time again so no need to expect you to take any heed of it this time either.

2: You accused the Traveller community of being overrepresented as "slaveers" on the basis of the actions of about five criminals

That is deeply racist

In one instance the family involved is a dynasty who control many sites the length and breadth of England (One of the reasons they got away with it for nearly a quarter of a century) - the five you mention were the ones who could be charged, tried, convicted and imprisoned on the evidence produced. Cannot think of any others who have illegally kept dozens of vulnerable people in appalling conditions to be worked to the point of exhaustion without payment - no wonder the members of this family are millionaires eh Jim?


3: You accused Irish shcool children of being brainwashed to hate Britain even though you ahev never been able to give examples of that hatred.

That is deeply racist

Where do you think this came from Jim:

The words are Dominic Behan's

My name is O'Hanlon, and I've just turned sixteen.
My home is in Monaghan, and where I was weaned
I learned all my life cruel England's to blame,
So now I am part of the patriot game.

The Irish historian Ruth Dudley Edwards said exactly the same of her education in the republic as did many of the surviving "volunteers" interviewed in that documentary about the IRA's 1956 - 1962 "Border Campaign" that you rather pointedly refused to watch.

I take it that they are all wrong and just accept in the midst of one enormous brain fart that Jim knows best? Don't count on it, on this and many more things I believe and know you are wrong.

4: You claim that tere isa massive problem with antisemitism in the labour Party, but are unable to explain why the Jews in the Party haven't gone public
Your first explanation was that they love their Party - you now deny havving said that, but it doesn't make any difference
If there was massive antisemitism, the Jewish members would have made that public - any race or culture would -- they haven't so it doesn't exist

Any problem within the Labour Party picked up by members of that Party would in the first instance always be reported by them to the Labour Party's National Executive Committee for them to sort out - initially with regard to charges of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party that is precisely what was done. The OULC affair raised the stakes as the University and the House of Commons were threatening Inquiries of their own. After Baroness Royall's and Baroness Chakrabarti's Inquiries finished only then did those complaining about various things within the Labour Party go public with their concerns - Labour's NEC have not been so forthcoming and in accordance with Chakrabarti's "whitewash" it is highly unlikely that they ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:45 AM

Why the fuck I need to explain anything to you is beyond me but as I time anyway... There was only one point I was trying to make- The post numbered 2525 reminded me of the Zager and Evans song. That song makes more sense than a lot of things. Not everything is about you Keith nor does everything have any deep or hidden meanings.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:35 AM

2. Of course I want to understand what point you are trying to make.
Why will you not help?

3. I ask you because I thought that might be the point you were trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:12 AM

1. OK
2. Why?
3. Why ask me?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 05:34 AM

Not looking for a fight Dave. That is coat trailing.
I just was trying to establish the meaning of your last few posts.
Do you consider me unreasonable to ask for a quote when accused of saying something I do not believe and would never say?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 17 - 08:54 AM

I didn't say makes more sense than some posts though did I Keith. I said it makes more sense than some. Whether that is people, posts or songs is entirely up to the reader to decide.

I am happy to identify a song that it makes more sense than. Itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, yellow, polka-dot bikini.

I have no idea what coat trailing means.

Will you explain why you asked or are you just looking for a fight?

:D tG