Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesonny

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Steve Shaw 28 Apr 17 - 07:50 PM
bobad 28 Apr 17 - 07:56 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Apr 17 - 08:05 PM
bobad 28 Apr 17 - 08:43 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM
Raggytash 29 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM
bobad 29 Apr 17 - 07:18 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Apr 17 - 07:55 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Apr 17 - 06:08 PM
Teribus 30 Apr 17 - 01:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM
Raggytash 30 Apr 17 - 05:58 AM
Raggytash 30 Apr 17 - 06:30 AM
Teribus 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Apr 17 - 06:35 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Apr 17 - 08:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Apr 17 - 02:48 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM
Teribus 01 May 17 - 01:39 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 02:15 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 02:42 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 02:48 AM
Iains 01 May 17 - 03:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 May 17 - 04:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 May 17 - 04:11 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 04:15 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 04:22 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 04:28 AM
Iains 01 May 17 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 05:17 AM
bobad 01 May 17 - 06:42 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 06:57 AM
Iains 01 May 17 - 07:01 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 07:18 AM
bobad 01 May 17 - 08:35 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 08:52 AM
bobad 01 May 17 - 08:57 AM
Raggytash 01 May 17 - 09:06 AM
Iains 01 May 17 - 09:29 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 10:06 AM
bobad 01 May 17 - 11:22 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 12:54 PM
Steve Shaw 01 May 17 - 12:59 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 May 17 - 01:14 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 May 17 - 01:24 PM
Jim Carroll 01 May 17 - 01:35 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:50 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser, why don't you. Your bitterness is showing through! You're sussed! 🤡


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:56 PM

Weak, Shaw, very weak. Try again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:05 PM

""It is not believable that they are all lying about it."
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done
Can you describe the nature of this antisemitism Keith and who is involved?
POINT THE POINT - WHY HAVEN'T THE VICTIMS COME FORWARD AND DESCRIBED WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM?,   
You didnt link to the Independent article,
John MacDonnell is a wannabe Labour Leader who wishes Corbyn to be removed so he can lead the party.
The article makes th point that there is no specific evidence to show that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party
""Jeremy believes he is completely non-discriminatory. He would never be hostile to someone in the street. But he is, if you like, anti-Semitic along the institutionalised lines of the Metropolitan police in the 1990s, when they messed up the Stephen Lawrence ……
A Labour Party spokesman directed The Independent to a tweet, which read: "Sunday times attack story from a source from another political party who never worked for Labour. Not serious."
He did not give a concrete example that Mr Corbyn was anti-Semitic. But instead he stressed that was the perception of Mr Corbyn and the party, and Mr Fletcher criticised his reaction to those reports."

Do this as long as you want - until you bring specified charges they are no more than accusations by interested politicians.
No evidence, no case
Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public - why the Jewish Members of aprliament - after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is - why?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:43 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser.....

Nah, I'm enjoying sipping a delightful little Chardonnay from Chile's Casablanca Valley. It is resplendent of grapefruit and lemon with a hint of tropical pineapple and just a faint touch of oak. It married quite nicely with my supper of peppered, grilled Atlantic salmon with a side of blanched rapini sauteed in extra virgin olive oil from Lebanon with homegrown organic garlic and chili flakes accompanied by a salad of butter/Boston/bibb lettuce with a homemade vinaigrette of extra virgin olive oil, white balsamic vinegar, Dijon mustard, homegrown organic garlic, a soupçon of anchovy paste and a few macerated capers from the Middle east.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM

Ye gods, that explains everything. Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze. Buttery, cloying juice. The fact that it's oaked (usually achieved by dangling oak staves or wood chips in it, not by oak-ageing in barrels) betrays its lack of balance in the first place. Next time try a nice, crisp, minerally Falanghina del Beneventano from Campania. No oak required. That'll wash away the horrid taste of that Chardonnay and sweeten your mood.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

Jim,
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done

I never have.
I just report what is coming out of Labour.
It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it.

You didnt link to the Independent article,

Yes I did, but too long for a Mudcat clickie.

Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public

They made their complaints about the party to the party leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is

We know exactly what Livingstone, Shah and others have said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM

Wasn't me Miss, it was some big boys...............



Isn't it about time you grew up and behaved like an adult.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith
You started this lynching and have pursued from day one
Yu refuse to respond to the facts of the obvious agendas - B.D. S. and the fight within the labour party - you dredge up combatants from both, you quote them out of context of whare they stand - both as opponents of Corbyn and supporters of the Israeli regime, you refuse to tell us why, after a year, we still do not know what this "antisemistism" is and who is involved, you make up antisemitic reasons why the Jewish mambers don't go public, you deny having done so - now you won't explain why they don't simply support their fallow Jews and explain what is happening
"£hey made their complaints about the party to the party leadership,"
See what I mean
WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM SIMPLY IGNORING THE LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP AND GOING TO THE PRESS - THEY WOULD HAVE A WILLING EAR THERE.
wHAT IS STOPPING THE ISRAELI REGIME FROM MAKING PUBLC THE EVENTS =- THEY HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORTERS WITHIN LABOUR - WHY THE BLANKET OF SILENCE?

The answer is simple
The "antisemitism in the Labout Party is no mare than opposition to the Isreali ergime - pure and simple
The Israeli regime has decared that to criticise its policies is antisemitic - that is what Labour is being accused of
You have kept this up for a year now and we are no nearer knowing any of these answwrs
WE do know what Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jewish People so neither were antisemitic - my point exactly
Shah borrowed the idea of a Jewish researcher as a solution for the Palestine problem and Livingstone quoted historical facts about Zionism - not the Jewish people
Even if they were, two members of the Labour party is not "a serious problem"
Not believeablt that politicians lie to gain political advantage - you live in Britain don't you - lying is part of the job description.
No sane human being accuses somebody and perisits in doing so, whithout carefully laying out what they are guilty of, and no "decent" democratic society would ever condemn the accused without having all the information at hand
To do so would be vigilante lynch-law - that is what you are proposing here
What has Labout done
You suggest I am extremist left (I am not)
You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of antisemitism
The left parties in Britain were formed by, among others, Jews who had fled the pogroms of Europe - the left of Europe Included revolutionary Jews like Trotsky - Lenin (and Stalin) condemned antisemitism as "evil"
On teh other hand - rightist, German Indusrtial Capitalism financed a regime that sent six million Jews to their deaths - antisemism is a rightist philosophy - one of your political group's pet projects.
Answer the points or you ahve no case
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:18 AM

Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze.

A perfect selection then for I am young at heart and, unlike you, not a pretentious snob.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:55 AM

Should have nipped in for a brew, Steve - We are only half an hour from Malham.

D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM

It was all a bit of a bugger, Dave, and very last-minute. A two-car family entourage, brother, sister-in-law, her sister (all from New Zealand) plus me dad in one car, then me, Mrs Steve and me mum in my car. Met at the Lister and had a very tolerable lunch. Good old pub, though a bit too much oil in the beer batter. Then they went off up Gordale and we drove up t'other road to Malham Tarn, then over to Arncliffe, up to Litton then past me favourite mountain, Penyghent, down to Settle then 'ome. No getting out for a walk, all about taking 88-year-old mum for a nice ride. There'll be a next time, Dave, when I don't have quite so many people to keep happy!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:08 PM

Pretentious, moi? I never buy wine that costs more than a fiver, preferably on special. Pretentious isn't the word. Discriminating is the one you're looking for. Chardonnay still wine is the drink of the ignoranti, rather like Liebfraumilch used to be in the 70s. Avoid NZ whites which are all over-priced and usually too cloying. Sauvignon blanc can be good, mainly from France, maybe the odd Chilean, but there are some real shitters around. Pinot grigio, yawn. A good steely Italian white from Vesuvio, or the exceptionally dependable Viña Sol from Torres, is my recommendation for decent budget white. Some nice Marsanne from the south of France too, sunshine in a glass. Leave the Chardonnay for the kids and the Essex girls. About your level, actually. Someone's got to drink it I suppose. Oaky whites? I puke in your general direction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:24 AM

"me" what?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

Steve, wine appreciation is subjective.
Bobad's view is as valid as yours.
We see again the bully teacher trying to ridicule and humiliate the child who dares to challenge your orthodoxy.
Wine appreciation is not a science.

Jim,
"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith


If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!

you dredge up combatants from both,

The people I quote are not dredged up. They are all senior and prominent Labour people.

I quote McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor and Corbyn's closest ally, Abbott who is very close to Corbyn, Watson the Deputy Leader, and prominent people like Khan and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.

Who knows more about what is going on inside Labour?
Not you and Steve!!

Why don't you quote people who challenge those views?

Because they would all be people like Steve who have no knowledge and who no-one has ever heard of.

You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of anti-Semitism

Here is a book about it.
"Book of the day
The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism – review
Dave Rich's new history reveals the origins of Labour's recent antisemitic scandal in a wider leftwing revival of prejudice "
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/13/the-lefts-jewish-problem-corbyn-israel-and-antisemitism-dave-rich-review


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:58 AM

Y A W N .......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:30 AM

Playing on the Internet I've found a fascinating site:

heritagemaps.ie

Should keep me amused for several hours and far more interesting than the tripe that is being spouted here by certain parties.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Steve Shaw - 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM - Only three in your car Shaw? No other members of your family wanted to be bored shitless by you then? Or was it your turn to transport t' whippet and t' pigeons?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Ah yes. Good old Dave Rich again. Round and round and round we go. 💤💤💤

And Keith, tsk. I try to wean bobad away from his adolescent wine habits toward a more mature attitude to finding a good bottle, all in order to make him a more cheerful and balanced chap, and what happens? Well, I get it in the neck from YOU! And you're supposed to be his friend and ally! By the way, you never have said what you thought of his equating us with pigs, having previously lamented the fact that we, unlike him of course, attack the man, not the topic. Got anything to say about that, hmmm? He's your mate, after all, and he WAS supporting you when he said it! Or are you, on this fine Christian Sunday, Cain to his Abel? Have you told God that you're not bobad's keeper? Yeah, that should fix it! 😇


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:35 AM

Out of order, Teribus. Mind your own business. Do you wipe your bottom front to back, back to front or not at all?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 08:32 AM

"If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!"
You say you are not obsessed you are
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism and you refuse top pproduce on single scarp of evidence - not one - that is lying
Accusations are lies if they are persitently unfornded
Where is your evidsence for Labour's antisemitism
Your "witnesses" fall into two categories
1   Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign - I have given you those links over and over again - you refuse to acknowledge them
That is lying
2   Those who wish to get rid of Corbyn as leader
You refuse to acknowledge either - that is lying
I have requested tht you explain how you can find somebody guilty of something without specifying what they have done (natural justice)
You refuse to respond - lying again.
I have asked you over and over again to tell us why the Jewish members have not gone to the press - you respond by saying they went to Corbyn - not my question - that is lying
You stated originally that they did not do so because of their respect for the party, then denied having said it when it was pointed out how antisemitic that was (evn though I put it up twice and you compounded it by saying "I'm sure they love the party" as a reply.
Your whole case has been a barrage of obsessive lies
You will not tell us why the Jewish members did not go public - that compounds your lie.
You can quote who the hell you like, but until you produce the facts of what they are accused of you have no case and you will contiue to lie.
If your case is illogical - as it is - and that is pointed out to you - unless you respond with reasonable answers you are lying on speed.
You know as well as anybody here that natural justice demands that a case is proved with evidence NOT ACCUSATIONS
How can anybody defend themselves from undescribed accusations - what kind of kangaroo court justice to you carry around in your head?
Now - one more time.
why didn't the Jewish members who claim there is antisemitism specify what form it took?
Refusal to respond with confirm you are lying, will confirm you know you have no case and confirm that you stand by your original antisemitic statemen
Answer my question
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:48 PM

Jim,
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism

I have not. I have just repeated what senior, prominent Labour people say themselves.
People in a position to know the facts, unlike you and Steve.

Your "witnesses" fall into two categories

Really? What about your witnesses?
Sorry. You do not have any at all, right Jim.

Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign

Israel is far from being the worst country in the world, so why single it out for a boycott?
Only an enemy of Israel would support that.
Most intelligent informed people do not, and certainly no decent democracy does. Only regimes that are really nasty places.
Your friends.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

Answer the questions Keith otherwise you are compounding your lying
You are still pursuing this crusade despite the fact that there is no evidence
Kangaroo courtism in the extreme
"Israel is far from being the worst country in the world"
Can' think of another that is ethnically cleansing an entire people to create a monotheistic state
an't think of another State which has single-handedly created as many refugees as Israel has.
Can't think of another that has blockaded a people for ten years
Israel is a fascist State in a party of the world that is a time bomb
Can't think of another State that has consistently avoided being charged with war crimes bu U S vetos
Can't think of another terrorist state with nuclear weapons
Can't think of another state that has persistently invaded its third word neighbour with heavy artillery, missiles and chemical weapons
Can't think of anoter state which cold-bloo=dedly fascilitates the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed refugees and then appointed the man forung to be responsible Prime minister
Britain and America sell arms to many states consistently committing war crimes and human rights abuses
It doesn't matter anyway - the fact that there are other States with a poor record doesn't alter what Israel is and what it is doig
It is a terrorist state
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:39 AM

Fortunately Jim - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:15 AM

The civilised world said this:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Fortunately Jom - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better."
The precision and erudition of your answer sweeps me off my feet
Bet you say that to all the girls
Is that really the best you can summon up?
Sorry - forgot who I was addressing - 'course it is!!
Didn't you know the United Nations was an antisemitic organisation Raggy?
That posting is four months old and ancient history - go wash your mouth out!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:48 AM

Sorry Jim, here's me thinking that the UN was a erudite body ....


.....I'll go and stand in the corner. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 03:46 AM

Raffytash. A view of the UN.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-takeover-of-the-united-nations/5303368

credibility is further stretched by the recent election of saudito the UN women's rights commission

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-

The original concept was good but it took a ride on a roller coaster to hell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:05 AM

Jim, as Teribus said, only enemies of Israel believe all that propaganda.

It is not a "fascist state" and not engaged [n "ethnic cleansing."
Just saying that got Ward dropped by the Lib Dems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:11 AM

Rag, no-one here denies that the settlements are regarded as illegal by other countries, as in your link.

Decent countries however do not believe Israel to be guilty of any of those things in Jim's recent post.
Just saying them will get you suspended from any of our political parties, except the extreme Right or Left.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:15 AM

Iains, neither of the links worked, one said "sorry, something went wrong. Please try again in a couple of minutes" I did, and got the same message. The other read "Page not found"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:22 AM

Did you actually read the link professor, if so which part of "The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction" do you not understand.

Which bit of "Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence" do you not understand.

Which bit of "The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders" do you not understand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:28 AM

"The original concept was good but it took a ride on a roller coaster to hell."
You take flaws in a complicated system to undermine an organistion of international States - you have attempted to do so with Humn Rights organisations Iaians
Your alternative appears to be that the only thing we have to rely on are the denials of the terrorist states
That would be a real "road to hell" in my opinion - no international laws, not war crimes commissions, ho overseeing of human rights.... nothing
The Israelis demanded the International Court of Justice be dismantled, when she was called to face her crimes following the last set of massacres of civilians in Gaza
Is that what you are suggesting - if not, what
We don't rely on pronouncements from any of these organisations for our information and understanding - we have world wide and largely neutral observers, witness statements and, certainly in the case of Gaza, a blow-by-blow view of what was happening, as it was happening - we saw the results nightly on our televisions, read it in the papers - and we have our own intelligence and moralities to judge the rights and wrongs of the situation.
Without the United Nations, Amnesty.... and all these other organisations, the world would be an extremely dangerous, shitty place for all of us.
Instead of attempting to undermine these organisations, why not just reply to what they are actually saying?
We know Israel to be a Terrorist State carrying our a programme of ethnic cleansing on an entire culture of people who have occupied the area for many centuries, god knows, there are enough Jews and Israelis who have said the same thing themselves.
You have an npleasant habit f denying apparent facts on the basis of the opinions of largely unknown and untrustworthy sources
One of your favourites, Global Research" is a site st up by a Russian billionaire - very reliable, I'm sure.
I'd rather trust Rupert Murdoch, shit that he is.
At least he employs teams of experts skilled in the trade of journalism
It's facts that carry the weight in these discussions, not random opinions that any moron can scoop up off the net.
For any opinion one person can scoop up making a case, there are hundreds out there to contradict it
"The facts man, the facts, as Joe Friday used to say
C'mon - give us a real argument
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:53 AM

Jim. How can the UN function correctly when 5 members hold veto powers and kill many worthwhile resolutions stone dead? Have a read of gaddaffi's UN speech.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 05:17 AM

"Jim. How can the UN function correctly when 5 members hold veto powers "
I have been making this point for as long as I can remember
Committees do the research, powerful nations block actions their findings
It is not the findings that are at fault (which is what you are challenging)
It is the lack of action on those findings.
The fact that all of this is done publicly is the greatest value of the U.N. - we know when they are not doing their duty
Interestingly, the two greatest blockers of action by vetoes are your particular flavours of the month - Russia and the United States
The U.S. has operated over 100 vetoes in order to prevent action against Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses.
Personally, I think the power of veto should be removed, but that is beside the point
As flawed as it may be, its actions are open to public scrutiny
If you took your attitude we would have no health service because of its weaknesses, no justice system, no government...... anarchic barbarism
You seek to improve it, not undermine its work
As I said, you don't need a committee to tell you what to think, but you do need one such as the U.N. to get a cross-section of differentiating views
If you believe their statement to be flawed, challenge the statement and not teh fact that any organiseation such as this is made up of flawed human beings
We all have access to the facts and the intelligence to make up our own mind on them.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 06:42 AM

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 06:57 AM

UN Watch has been described as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" (Agence France-Presse)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency describe UN Watch as "a pro Israel Organisation"

From Wiki:

"Ian Williams, former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association[67] and author of The UN For Beginners,[68] wrote in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007 that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians.

The last sentence is a little telling ..........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 07:01 AM

Committees do the research, powerful nations block actions their findings
It is not the findings that are at fault (which is what you are challenging)
It is the lack of action on those findings.
Jim
If only that were true. If the findings do not meet the approval of uncle sam they are ditched and all who sail with her. Also if the UN does not condone the actions of the US the US writes it's own agenda beholden to no one. That makes the UN a fairly useless organisation in my book. It also need to move its base to a more neutral country. From the little I have seen of the UN in various countries they have fleets of brand new land cruisers parked in the best hotel in town and they rarely move. Their peace keeping role I have no firsthand knowledge of.
A series of articles to elaborate:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=un+american+influence&x=11&y=8

Try reading the message and not decry the messenger


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 07:18 AM

"If the findings do not meet the approval of uncle sam they are ditched and all who sail with her."
That is actually what I said
The U.N. includes the US which is one of the six rich and powerful nations with a veto.
More opinions from a rich and powerful publication from a rich and powerful nation
AS I said - the work of the UN is far more democratic and transparent than any government empowered to suppress information and block its being gathered
I asked you a question - I ask again
What do you propose as an alternative.
I repeat, we do not rely on such organisations to make up our minds - we do so on the basis of all information to hand
I've shown you mind - you show me yours.
This is little more than a smokescreen to avoid the main issues here - the terrorist nature of the Israeli regime
To you actually have anything to show this is not the case (apart from Global Research)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:35 AM

The last sentence is a little telling.....

The second to last more so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:52 AM

True Bobad, it end "for alleged bias against Israel" the defining word being alledged.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:57 AM

The first part of the last sentence puts to lie the second part.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 09:06 AM

Only in your (lack of) understanding of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 09:29 AM

Jim
To my knowledge only 5 permanent members of the UN have veto powers, China, Russia, US, GB and France.
You criticize Global Research.
I take the same stance as a blog response below, on the accuracy of their reporting:
"12. michel chossudovsky's globalresearch.ca is a light in the halls of pol darkness

agree not all globalresearch.ca writers meet high scholarly or informed opinion standards, but the vast majority do. the site is a clearinghouse for many kinds of critical pol views, from the right and left. if i need quick access to left views in particular i search the site. dr paul craig roberts is routinely featured (a repub anti-fascist former reagan treas dept undersec) as is dr chossudovsky from the left, whose pol-ec views are unassailable from the left. whoever 'conspires' to trash the site as unworthy should look in the mirror first."

As to the UN it is time the smaller countries showed initiative and destroyed the veto powers of countries and also employed sanctions against those that take action without authorisation i.e. The US.

I have a greater belief in the accuracy of Global research reporting than I have in the belief the white helmets are purely a humanitarian organisation in Syria.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 10:06 AM

"You criticize Global Research."
I'm not the slightest bit interested in Global research Iains
It is a webiste among many which puts forward opinions on politocal topics.
I'm have no itention of entering itto its merits or demerits
You have my arguments both on Israel and on The United Nations - they reprent no other view than my own
You want to challenge those views, feel free to do so with your own views
I anked you what yo propose as an alternative to the U.N. , just as I've asked you your alternatives to the human rights groups when we were arguing about Assad
There is enough information slewing around to make an independent assessment of both - nobody has to hide behind just one.
How about Amnesty International - do you still dis their account of the history of torture and oppression by the Assad Regime
If you don't like Amnesty - there's plenty more to choose from - including the statements of deserters Syria who decided they'd had enough
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 11:22 AM



And because Israel is part of the Western imperium, as well as a key target for Islamists, it is also enemy number one for progressives. So an obsessive preoccupation with the Jewish state becomes the default position of the Left. China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia – pah! The focus must be on Israel and Israel alone. From that springs an entire worldview that encompasses "Zionist" control of the media, of business, of everything. And we can't be accused of targeting Jews because we don't use the word. We say Zionist, not Jew.

So deep does this warping of what it means to be Left and progressive now run that it is almost prosaic to assert Zionist control. But now, to cap it, we have a Labour leader whose entire political career has been in this milieu – feeding it, growing it and pushing it.

For months now, week by week, examples have been emerging of cut and dried anti-Semitism – most dressed up, oh so cleverly, as anti-Zionism, but much not even bothering to hide it. And the Labour leader's response to the criticism that he is soft on anti-Semitism and that it's his political mindset that has fuelled its rise is not to get hard on anti-Semitism. It's to get irritated.


The Left's hatred of Jews chills me to the bone


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 12:54 PM

Your link is to an article by Stephen Pollard who is an extreme right winger and a Islamophobic racist linked to extremist right-wing movements and campaigns
A summary of his views here
Interesting to read some of the others associated with his campaigns (Keith's Jim Murphyt is a hoot!!)
I was interested to see a mantion of the Holocaust
The authoir, in his attack on the left, carefully neglects to mention that the Left shared the fate of the Jews under facism
Right wing polotics broucht about the holocaust and ift was financed by German Capitalism who had no compunction in using Jews as slave labour until they had outlived their usefulness, when they were shipped off to the ovens.
It's too often forgotten that the Holocaust was not aimed solely at the Jews, even though they were the main victims
Communists, Trades Unionists,, Gypsies -or anybody considered superfluous to New Germany's Right wing Reich, all ended up in the same horrific place
Jim Carroll

Stephen Pollard
Politics
On Islam
In the London Review Blog Eliot Weinberg has described Pollard as an 'anti-Muslim hatemonger',[6] much like Bruce Bawer whose latest book, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, he reviewed in the New York Times Book Review on 26 July 2009.[7] Pollard began his review thus:
There is no more important issue facing the West than Islamism, Islamofascism or — to use yet another label — radical Islam. And there is no more necessary precondition to countering that threat than understanding it...But before we do any of that, we have to agree that the threat exists.
Pollard proceeds to accuse 'many liberals and others on the European left' of 'making common cause with radical Islam and then brazenly and bizarrely denying both the existence of that alliance and in fact the existence of any Islamist threat whatever'.[8] He acknowledges that he finds "Surrender" 'at times, hard going', but this is only in part 'because of the level of detail Bawer offers in support of his argument' and because 'Bawer is unquestionably correct, and that fact is quite simply ¬terrifying'.[9]
On Public Services
On his blog, Pollard disparages both the NHS[10] and the Royal Mail[11], and speaks approvingly of private alternatives. After accusing the Guardian and other British critics of ignorance about the US healthcare system, Pollard writes:
The plain fact is that if you have a serious disease or need long term care, if you have the right coverage you are so much better off being treated in the US that the NHS is not even comparable.
Although he qualifies the statement by adding that the 'crucial words, of course, are "if you have the right coverage", and clearly the US system is not remotely a model to be followed', he adds:
But to leap from that to the conclusion that the NHS is 'better' is dangerously deluded. The NHS is a system designed for an era when food rationing was the norm, and is metaphorically, ideologically and financially bankrupt.[12]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 17 - 12:59 PM

Well I've read a good few wacky, unworldly rants in the papers in my time but that one takes the biscuit. Remind me -- how many hate crimes per annum directed at Jews do we have in this country?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:14 PM

Rag,
Which bit of "Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence" do you not understand.

That was something only said by Malaysia.

Which bit of "The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders" do you not understand.

No-one here denies that the settlements are regarded as illegal by other countries.

Decent countries however do not believe Israel to be guilty of any of those things in Jim's recent post.
Just saying them will get you suspended from any of our political parties, except the extreme Right or Left.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:24 PM

Jim,
We know Israel to be a Terrorist State carrying our a programme of ethnic cleansing on an entire culture of people who have occupied the area for many centuries,

Royal "We" Jim?
Saying that will get you thrown out of any mainstream political party here.
No decent democratic country describes Israel as "terrorist state" or accuses it of "ethnic cleansing."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:35 PM

"Saying that will get you thrown out of any mainstream political party here."
I wouldn't want to be a member of any mainstream Party Keith - but if you are implying that my observation is in any way antisemitic - prove it
I would be joined by many millions of Jews who now share that view.
"No decent democratic country describes Israel as "terrorist state" or accuses it of "ethnic cleansing."
#A cowardly defence
No decenbt democratic country would stay silent while their friends are being attacked as Israel is
Piss off
You've played all these cards far too many times
Now
About the silence of the Jewish members of Parliament WHY, WHY, WHY, if it is as serious as you claim?
It is antisemitic to suggest they they stay silent while their fellow Jews are being attacked in the way you claim
You have no interset in The Jewish Peopl - Just the extrem right Isreali regime
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 20 August 3:02 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.