Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM

Jim,
Note that I HAVE included the range of estimates for those killed- Since I do not KNOW the exact number, I DO NOT CHANGE IT TO MAKE MY POINT, as you seem to like to do.

The Cambodians lost 900 to 2800 PER DAY

The Rwandans lost at LEAST 5000 per day.

S-S was 250 to 1750 killed per day.

We would agree that this is far too great a number- BUT IT IS NOT THE WORST MASSACRE BY FAR.

Using the PLO claims, the killings BY JORDANIANS of Palestinians was worse. and over a longer time as well. But YOU seem to have no problem with Palestinian civilians being killed as long as it is not by Israelis.

You have ignored that the PALESTINIANS have ben determine to HAVE committed war crimes, and the Israelis have been accused- You excuse the Palestinians and object to the Israelis???

The Palestinians have put WP into incendiary rockets and fired them at civilians- THAT you have no problem with.

The Israelis fire smoke shells into military positions THAT THE PALESTINIANS have illegally placed in civilian areas, and YOU raise hell about it.


It would be interesting to hear you explain why we should not call you a bigot, as you seem to be one, who has no regard for human life on ANY side.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:32 PM

Whose, then, so we know whose lies YOU accept without thought?
It's in some of the earlier cut-n-pastes you look for it as you seem to havse decided it's a lie in advance.
Of course - you could produce a single massacre that outstrips the "up to 5000" suggested by the "lying" LeMonde reporter.
Both the Rwandan and the Cambodian were country wide conflicts - see 'The Killing Fields' and the amazing personal account on the Rwandan conflict (the name of which escapes me for the moment as it's on loan).
"The Israelis fire smoke shells into military positions THAT THE PALESTINIANS have illegally placed in civilian areas, and YOU raise hell about it. "
Been there and done that with Keith - search "killing hostages" which you seem to be advocating, along with him.
"It would be interesting to hear you explain why we should not call you a bigot,"
It would be interesting to hear why you should not be called an out-and-out racist as you and your mob are suggesting that a whole nation has no valid right to their homeland - don't suppose either of us are going to get an answer.
However, unless you can show that the barbarism shown by The Israeli administration is representative of the Jewish people as a whole (which I know is not the case from personal experience) - I would say you have no case, don't you?
You peaple shame the Jewish people by making such a suggestion. Jews I have known would cringe to be compared with people like you - Benny Rothman, who fought Facists in Spain alongside my father; my landlord in London, Hugh Faulkner, who, as a medical student risked his life by joining Moseley's Blackshirts in order to pass on information on the marches and street meetings so they could be disrupted. Or all those wonderful activists I knew in Manchester, many of whom had lost their entire families in The Holocaust and who still felt such a sense of outrage that they devoted their lives to bettering the lives of their fellow workers and fighting for peace.
You don't even feature next to any of them
"As for "squalid", an admitted racist who has called Palestinians "sub-human"
I'm sure you mean "Israelis" and I have done no such thing - I have called "less than human", those who have persistantly persecuted, non combatants, terrorised, dehumanised, slaughtered, ghettoised, attempted to starve into submission, used chemicals on house-dwellers, destroyed homes, usurped land, driven hundreds of families to live near toxic rubbish dumps...... AND CONTINUE TO DO SO....   Their race and religion was neither mentioned nor is it relevant
I would include in my description those who attempt to justify such action with denials and distortions - especially those who claim that people who belong to any particular race or culture should be immune from criticism for such behaviour.
You really are scraping the bottom a an extremely unwholesome barrel for your arguments
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:47 PM

Repeating, since you have that comprehension problem:



"People who use chemical weapons on civilians demean the term "human""

You forget it was ONLY the Palestinians who were determined to have used WP AS A WEAPON against civilians.




"And let me remind you it is you who would deprive a whole national group of a legitiate right to a homeland - how racist can you get? "


AND YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE HOMELAND ESTABLISHED IN 1921.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:36 AM

Don, you claim to be fair minded, but you make no criticism of Jim while vilifying me.
Jim supported every Palestinian crime without question.
I answered your challenge for examples of even handedness from me.

I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case.

He has just acknowledged again, without criticism, the taking of innocent "hostages" (his word) for use as human shields by Hamas.

The indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary Jews and their children with missiles packed with ball bearings is a crime against humanity and a wicked war crime, compounded by using innocents as hostages and shields to prevent retaliation.
Which side benefits from the news images of horribly injured children?
Does that not raise any dark suspicions in your mind Don.
It would in an open, fair mind.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 04:03 AM

"AND YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE HOMELAND ESTABLISHED IN 1921."
Perhaps you might point out where I have ever made such a statement - my argument lies in location of that homeland; what should happen to the Palestinians legitimately (disputed by you) living there; whether it includes the occupied territories, whether the Israelis have a right to extend it, as they appear to be doing, and the inhuman treatment consistently and over a long period meted out to those who have no part in this argument and who are just trying to live their lives and feed themselves and their families
I have no great understanding of or interest in the present political dispute surrounding the Jewish Homeland other than it should in no way impinge on the lives of those not actually involved in any debates taking place in its maintenance; I was brought up in a family that totally supported a Jewish homeland following the horrific events of WW2 - that remains my position.
My prime interest in this topic is a humanitarian one - an aspect you and your friends here have either ignored or wheedled out of by either supporting or denying the acts of vicious militaristic suppression - including behaviour that can be described as war crimes and abuses of human rights.
"Repeating, since you have that comprehension problem:"
Please don't talk down to me - you really aren't good enough at it.
Your bullying and hectoring and your overuse of the word "liar" is somewhat reminiscent of the old black-and-white Prisoner-of-War 'Colditz Story' type films - any minute I expect to receive "Ve haf ways of making you talk" - stop it, you jumped up little no-mark.
Keith;
"Jim supported every Palestinian crime without question.
Once again you are deliberately distorting what I have said to cover your own unconditional (to the point of fanaticism) support of Israeli atrocities and war crimes.
I have described the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression in pursuit of its territorial aims as "inevitable" in the circumstances - a weak, poorly armed and equipped people facing a highly trained, well equipped army (to the point of nuclear capability).
I believe that, should the Palestinians cease resistance to the Israeli juggernaut they are as likely to find themselves subject to the "rather good treatment" that the Bedouin families have had bestowed on them - ie living next to a toxic rubbish dump.
If you have any examples of my saying otherwise - please put them up.
Incidentally - apart from the US and other countries pursuing a policy of political and economic self-interest (openly admitted by the US) that is the view taken by the United Nations, UNESCO and other international bodies - and sympathetic responses to specific cases of atrocities have come from - Israeli enquiries - where else?
"He has just acknowledged again, without criticism, the taking of innocent "hostages" (his word) for use as human shields by Hamas."
No he has not - he has, from the beginning, questioned whether these are hostages and pointed out that Hamas is not a force parachuted in from Mars but made up of Palestinians living in the areas they have defended. That both sides have put the lives of civilians at risk in the conflict is beyond question, but it is the vastly superior Israeli military who have chosen the battlegrounds and deliberately targetted built-up areas.   
If you care to make the effort to read some of the links you have been given you will find that Israel has been found to have used hostages as human shields throughout their incursion into Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-human-shields-claim
http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/jul09/Rana_Human_Shields_update_report_Englsih_july_2009.pdf
"I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case."
You have been unconditionally supporting the Israeli case as early as your attempts to excuse the murder of aid workers - before I ever became involved in these discussions - want be to jog your memory?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 04:13 AM

want be to jog your memory?
Yes please.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:28 AM

Piss of Keith - you know as well as I do it's on the thread concerning the Israeli attack on the aid ship - what are you disputing - that you didn't support the killings or that it didn't preceed this discussion
When I get time I'll drag out the link - in the meantime you can be making your excuses.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:33 AM

You did offer Jim.
I am saying that in that instance, as in these threads, I put the Israeli perspective AFTER the Palestinian one had already been exhaustively posted.
I look forward to you trying to show otherwise.
So, yes please.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:41 AM

"New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid "
There you go - slightly earlier than you "I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case."
Now piss off and sort it out for yourself.
Jim Car5roll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM

I do not understand your post Jim.
(does anyone?)

This was what you undertook to do.
"You have been unconditionally supporting the Israeli case as early as your attempts to excuse the murder of aid workers - before I ever became involved in these discussions - want be to jog your memory?"

I DO want you to jog my memory please.
I think yours is playing tricks.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:43 AM

Jim, I have looked at the "Gaza Aid" thread you refer to.

Before I made my first post (7th June) the exclusively Palestinian case had already been put in,

11 posts by you.
11 posts by Don T.
19 posts by Lox.
15 posts by McGrath,
and a hundred or more by Carol C.

So Jim, whose memory needed jogging?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:25 AM

Jim,

" your overuse of the word "liar""

Well, if you don't want to be called a liar, then stop posting verifiably false statements and claiming them to be true, after being presented with factual evidence that they are not.





"stop it, you jumped up little no-mark."

Stop what? Pointing out your bigotry, obvious lies, and failure to answer any questions with facts???

YOU have not presented ANY evidence you care about the Palestinian people, or anyone else- When you denounce the Palestinians for putting tires filled with gasoline around political opponents ( also Palestinians) and lighting them on fire, or placing the launchers for rockets ( being launched at civilians in violation of the Geneva conventions) in schools and hospitals IN ORDER TO CAUSE PALESTINIAN CIVILIAN casualties, THEN you can get on a "humanitarian" high horse- as long as you acknowledge that you are admitting YOU have declared Jews not to be fully human, just by their existence.

As for "I was brought up in a family that totally supported a Jewish homeland following the horrific events of WW2 - that remains my position. " you fail to acknowledge where you would accept it- since you DENY the Mandate Palestine idea, FROM WW 1. **I** grew up with Palestinian neighbors, who came from the town of Ramallah. They were members of the one of the six founding families there ALL CHRISTIAN, who were driven out by the Arab Moslims in 1948.

You have NEVER addressed the FACT that there were MORE Jewish Arab refugess than Moslim Arab ones- and you have consistently denied that Jews have the "rights" that you demand for the Palestinian Moslims.

You have only decried that the Israelis have the audacity to fight back against the attacks and bigotry that you express so very well.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 09:52 AM

"I do not understand your post Jim."
Course you don't Keith - my point was to show that you have been supporting Israeli atrocities since at the very least May 2010 despite your claim that "I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case."
I was not supporting the Palestine on the "New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid " - I wsa objecting to the cold-blooded murder of aid workers - which you were supporting.
"Well, if you don't want to be called a liar, then stop posting verifiably false statements"
I don't post false statements - if I have made a mistake I admit to having done so - I do not see the point of getting involved in discussion threads and doing otherwise.
You, on the other hand, have desperately tried to make this a racist issue on my part, failed miserably and moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong.
You have claimed that I oppose the Jewish homeland - failed miserbly to even to make an approach on this one - so you move on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong.
You called me a liar when I said I had responded to a question you asked - when I pointed out that I had, you moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong.
You have said that the Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, when challenged, you ignore requests as to what should happen to the Palestinians - you ignore those requests.
Personally I find it despicable - as low as anybody can sink for anybody to hide behind centuries of victims of anti-Semitism to defend the inhuman and criminal behaviour on the part of the religious extremeists who run modern Israel - it is no defence to point at other criminals who are guilty of other atrocities - you have operated an eye-for-an-eye argument throughout this thread - why not, you bear all the hallmarks of a religious extremist yourself.
This is a discussion about Palestine and the atrocities that are taking place there; Israell is the aggressor and its victims are mainly civilians; men women or children, it appears not to amtter to the Israelis and their supporters; killed, maimed, made homeless deprived of basic needs of life... for the pursuit of territory. That is a fact that is recognised throughout the civiliesed world - address that one insted of crouching behind the dead for your argument.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:27 AM

Jim,

"I don't post false statements - if I have made a mistake I admit to having done so - I do not see the point of getting involved in discussion threads and doing otherwise."

Yet I have pointed out false statements YOU have posted, and you have neither acknowledged the facts, nor provided any support for your statements.

A lie on your part.



"You, on the other hand, have desperately tried to make this a racist issue on my part, failed miserably and moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong."

I have seen you complain about Israeli actions, yet defend the SAME actions or worse when the Palestinians were shown to have done them. If you have a reason other than bigotry, please provide it, as requested before and ignored by you.

2nd New Lie



"You have claimed that I oppose the Jewish homeland - failed miserbly to even to make an approach on this one - so you move on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong."

I have asked where you would put it, and why you do not acknowledge the Balfour Declaration, as the rest of the civilized worrld has. I have pointed out that the Arab Moslim Palestinians WERE given their own state, in 1923 or so, and you have never acknowledged that.




"You called me a liar when I said I had responded to a question you asked - when I pointed out that I had, you moved on without having the good grace to admit you were wrong."

Since YOUR saying you had replied was NOT accompanied by any answer or response addressing the question, I fail to see how I was wrong.



"You have said that the Palestinians have no claim to Palestine, when challenged, you ignore requests as to what should happen to the Palestinians - you ignore those requests."

Actually, I have stated that the ISRAELIS have a BETTER claim to the West Bank. IMO, the FACT that Israel is willing to NEGOTIATE the trade of LAND ( ISRAELI LAND) for peace with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not should tell you something.


What I can see id that you have not addressed the questions I have repeatedly asked, and you lie about doing so.

You have continued to insist that the NO Palestinians have NO RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of ANY Palestinians, even when supported by the Palestinian authorities, and that ALL ISRAELIS are responsible for the actions of ANY Israeli and should be collectively punished. In addition you deny the greater number of Arab Jewish refugees, and their rights.


Again,


MY questions were NOT "an eye for an eye". I was asking if you thought it better for Israel to

1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently
2. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Arab Moslims have treated the Jews,
3. OR Treat the Palestinians the way the Other Arab Moslim States have treated the Palestinians.

Easy question- Should the Palestinians be treated

1. As Israel treats them now?
2. As the Arab Moslims have treated the Arab Jews?
3. As the other Arab Moslim countries have treated the Palestinians?

I will even allow you to pick

4. As the Palestinians have treated the Israelis, since you talk about an eye for an eye.

If you have another choice, PLEASE let us know, and WHY you think it is justified.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:31 AM

sorry

"NO Palestinians have NO RESPONSIBILITY"

should have been

"NO Palestinians have ANY RESPONSIBILITY"

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM

I was not supporting the Palestine on the "New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid " - I wsa objecting to the cold-blooded murder of aid workers -
That was the Palestinian argument Jim.
Israel refuted that version of events.
I only put Israel's case on any issue AFTER Jim had exclusively put the Palestinian case.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 12:33 PM

"I will even allow you to pick "
You self righteous, pompous prick - stuff your choices
"Arab Moslims"
The ARAB MOSLIMS have not treated the Jews any way - some of their leaders have treated them badly, just as the present leadership in Israel is treating the Palestinians badly now TO BLAME THE ARAB MOSLIMS AS A WHOLE FOR BAD TREATMENT OF THE JEWS IS RACIST IN THE EXTREME - EVERY BIT AS RACIST AS SUGGESTING THAT "ALL MALE PAKISTANIS" ARE CULTURALLY IMPLANTED PERVERTS - it is you who is the racist here.
The protest here if of the treatment of Palestinian civilians.
There is a territorial dispute- the Palestinian people as a whole should not be subject to war crimes as they are.
Again the same answer to your question THE PALESTINIANS SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE HUMAN BEINGS THEY ARE - not targets of heavy weaponry as the Israelis have made them.
I ask you again - what you do with the Palestyinians you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live?
You say I hve not replied to 'false statements' I have made none - yo have skulked nbehind cowardly accusations of anti Semitism, of my denying the right of the Israel to a state - you have retracted neither, yet you have bullied, bluistered, demanded answers and still refuse to acknowledge that you have received answers - take your religios fanaticism and stiuffit in the same place as your choices.
It is you who has lied throughout this thread.
"That was the Palestinian argument Jim."
No it was not - it was the aid workers who were the victims of the attack - and the almost unniversal condemnation from the rest of the world.
"Israel refuted that version of events."
We really will have to adopt a legal system where the criminals try themselves - that would be fair and unbiased, wouldn't it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:18 PM

The "aid workers" who included Islamist activists, Jihadists and Hamas members, did indeed put the Palestinian version of events, repeated by you and others.
There are two sides to this and all arguments Jim.(Right Don?)
I put the other side.
Why the outrage Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 01:28 PM

No ourage Keith - we've become well used to your "putting the other side" - the killing of aid workers is par for the course.
Making them Jihadists is fairly common practice when you want to kill them - this was downright slaughter and was widely recognised and condemned as such (exept by you - again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 02:03 PM

Be clear Jim.
Do you object to anyone putting Israel's case on the forum?
If not, what are you saying?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 02:13 PM

Jim,

You are NOW stating that the actions of the government of a people ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY of those people?

SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON ISRAELIS???????

And WHY should Israeli settlers (who have a claim to the West Bank at least as great as the Moslim Palestinians) be punished for the actions of their government? Why should THEY have to move out of their homes, and give them to the Palestinians, as in Gaza?

There is a territorial dispute- the Israeli people as a whole should not be subject to war crimes as they are. Yet you are quite happy with the Palestinian Authorities providing support for those Palestinians who do so.


"You say I hve not replied to 'false statements' I have made none"

Another lie on your part, as there have been facts presented that show what you posted to be false, and you have provided nothing to support those lies.



I ask YOU - what you do with the israelis you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live?


YOU have still not answered MY questions, nor provided a factual basis for ANY comments that have been questioned.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:31 PM

"SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON ISRAELIS???????"
If Israel is the aggressor, as the world believes it is, then the Palestinian attacks can be accurately described as the self-defence of a poor, badly armed people aganst a bully with nuclear potential - what is your justification for Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians and the bullying oppression that has drawn the contempt of the world?
"Another lie!
There you go again, If it is, where is your retraction of my "racism" or my "denying the right of Israel to have a state" - if I am a liar then we both are liars - you have not retracted one single accusation you have made.
Both sides are "subject to war crimes" where is your acknowledgement of that.
"I ask YOU - what you do with the israelis you would deny a legitimate claim on where they live? "
And once again you are inventing an opinion I do not hold - I'm sure I'm wasting my time but - please point out where I have challenged Israel's right to live where they live legitimately?
Where is your response to my question as to what is to happen to a people who have no legitimate right to a state?
Your accusations are getting more wild and desperate and I'm afraid your responses are getting somewhat hysterical and inarticulate - would a prayer help, do you think?

"what are you saying?"
I am saying that you are claiming to be fair and unbiased and accusing those of us who oppose you (nearly everbody here - once again) to be the opposite, yet you continue to admit regularly that you are "only putting Israel's case" - and from your own admission, have been doing so since the murder of the aid workers in May last year - are you really so stupid as not to see how ridiculous this makes you out to be - from your own mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:55 PM

you continue to admit regularly that you are "only putting Israel's case" - and from your own admission, have been doing so since the murder of the aid workers in May last year - are you really so stupid as not to see how ridiculous this makes you out to be

Why does that make me ridiculous?
Does "only putting the Palestinian case" make you ridiculous?
Israel's case is that there were no "murders" on the Marmara.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:48 PM

""Don, you claim to be fair minded, but you make no criticism of Jim while vilifying me.""

Jim is responsible for his own thoughts and words, and guilt by association doesn't apply here, since Jim has indeed repeatedly said that he DOES NOT CONDONE THE MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL!! But you wouldn't know that, having, by your own admission refused to read anything more than two or three sentences long.

Get it?

You are the ONLY poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:01 PM

""The indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary Jews and their children with missiles packed with ball bearings is a crime against humanity and a wicked war crime, compounded by using innocents as hostages and shields to prevent retaliation.
Which side benefits from the news images of horribly injured children?""

Indeed, your statement, as with most of what you say, does raise some dark thoughts.

Of course the missiles are an unacceptable means of expressing frustration and nobody here is claiming otherwise.

You, however, are denying that the Palestinians have any reason to be frustrated, denying that Israel is in any way responsible for their frustration and claiming that their massive, disproportionate, indiscriminate response is wholly justified, even though they are killing Palestinian men, women and children at a rate that is many times greater than the number of deaths caused by those missiles.

The dark thoughts are increased by the knowledge that you are basing you arguments entirely upon the claims of the Israeli government and the IDF.

And those two organisations are acting as Judge and Jury on their own actions, and executioner of the Palestinian population, terrorist or not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:56 AM

Jim has indeed repeatedly said that he DOES NOT CONDONE THE MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL!!

You have imagined or dreamt that Don.
He has NEVER said that.
Just anodyne, trite statements deploring "all violence"

He has refused to specifically condemn the missiles, even on Lox's thread for that very purpose.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:48 AM

Don't just take my word Don.
McGrath, "I think the use of missiles is wrong, and also tends to hurt Palestinians, since it helps the Israel government to justify its own reliance on far greater levels of violence than the Palestinians have ever been able to deploy. I disagree with Jim on this point."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:28 AM

Don,

You are the ONLY poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame.

I have just given you examples of even-handed blame from me Don.

JIM CARROLL is the only poster who has attempted to absolve one side from all blame.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 04:04 AM

"Why does that make me ridiculous?"
Here's why
"Israel's case is that there were no "murders" on the Marmara."
One more time - I have never at any time condoned the the use of rockets on Israel - show me where I have.
I have said that I believe they are an inevitable consequence of a conflict caused by the oppression of a powerful state on a weak and defencless Third World people in order to expand its territory.
My stance on this matter is a humanitarian one - I support neither Israili Zionism (as you do) nor Muslim extremism - I have always argued that religion in any shape or form should never be an influencing factor in the running of any country - my statement exactly:
"As far as I'm concerned, all such states can go to their own chosen hell in a handcart, as long as they don't take the rest of us with them"
Now perhaps you can tell us where I have ever at any time advocated the use of weaponry of any sort on civilians - quoting another member of this forum who says he disagrees with me (I can't see any wide discrepancy between his argument and mine) is no proof of anything other than we might disagree on some things, nothing more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 04:15 AM

Israel's case IS that there were no murders.
It is ridiculous to ignore that fact.

You have justified the missiles as self defence Jim.
To end this confusion for good,

Do you condone the missiles, yes or no?
Are they justified, yes or no?

Surprise me and give two straight answers Jim.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 09:59 AM

"Israel's case IS that there were no murders."
This gets more and more bizzare - if you had been caught wearing a striped jumper and a mask and climbing out of a window carrying a bag marked "swag" wouldn't you say you didn't do it?
I'm quite sure that if Jack the Ripper had been caught he would have said something similar
The world's case is that there have been murders and Israel dunnem
OF COURSE THEY HAVE CLAIMED INNOCENCE - WOULDN'T YOU?????
"Do you condone the missiles, yes or no?"
No I do not - as I said, I believe they are inevitable given the aggression of the Israelis
"Are they justified, yes or no?"
How can they be either justified or unjustified by anybody - justice does not come into the matter if it is inevitable. They are the inevitable consequences of a small poorly armed people retaliating against the armed aggression and persecution of the Palestinians - if there is any blame to be levelled, the Israelis must take the lion's share of it because it is they who are the aggressors..
You have consistently defended, directly, by your denials or by your silence:
the massacres of refugees, the use of horrendous weapons in built up areas, the shelling of hospitals and schools, the killing of what you describe as "hostages", the attempts to starve an impoverished population into submission, the building of a wall to partition a people off from foods and means of livelihood, the killing of aid bringers, the eviction of householders in order to make use of their land, the mass movement of whole families next to a poisonous rubbish dump, the confiscation off taxes necessary for the running of a city, the everyday persecution and humiliation of ordinary citizens going about their business.....
which of these actions would you describe as "justified" - if any
Jim Carroll
PS Do you still beat your wife and children YES OR NO?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:10 AM

Young children caught doing wrong sometimes claim it is not their fault, because "John made me do it."

You acknowledge that the rockets are launched to murder innocent Jews and their children;
that they are a crime against humanity, and a war-crime.
SO, you do not condone them.
BUT the Jews make them do it.

In the Gaza aid thread a video clip was produced.
It was said to show the murder of a named activist.
It was a lie.
No-one was being shot in that clip.
Lying anti-Israel propaganda, like the "witnessed" body piles and the "witnessed" bodies thrown overboard by Jews.

The boarding was legal.
The boarders held paint-ball guns.
They carried pistols but in closed holsters.
They were attacked with deadly force.

People were killed.
Many had expressed their intention to be killed fighting Jews.
There is no evidence for murder.

How are you so certain that you find it "ridiculous" not to believe in murder?
Prejudice.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:18 PM

"Young children caught doing wrong sometimes claim it is not their fault, because "John made me do it.""
A perfect summing up of your stance on Pakistani perverts
The rest is twisting what I have said
You continue to defend far greater war crimes by the Israelis - you can't have it both ways
"not to believe in murder?"
You are not claiming not to believe in murderer - you are acceptng the word of the murderer on trust - and you are claiming that those of us who disagree with you are prejudiced - that is what make you ridiculous - you have admitted again and again only to be arguing for one side.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:34 PM

""People were killed.
Many had expressed their intention to be killed fighting Jews.
There is no evidence for murder.""

My God, those paintball guns must be powerful.

And once again you accept without rational consideration everything the Israelis tell you. Or are you claiming the victims committed suicide when faced with toy guns?......GET REAL!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:37 PM

It is a complete waste of time trying to open a closed mind Keith, and you are no longer worth the bother.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 01:15 PM

Drink to that Don - done my civic duty this week without having to look after the village idiot
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:44 PM

Don, it is an incontrovertible FACT that the borders held paintball guns and carried holstered pistols.
They can be clearly seen in the videos, which show them being attacked and some overwhelmed.
We know for certain some of the activists were killed.
There is no evidence that it was murder.
Or do you have some, Don or Jim?

You must have some.
Fair minded people would not make up their minds without any at all.
Would they?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:57 PM

You're getting to sound more like Uriah Heep with every posting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM

What did I get wrong Jim?
Do you deny the paintball guns, and pistols in secured in back holsters?
Do you deny the absence of any evidence for murder?

Tell us what convinces you, and we will all be convinced.
Or is it just blind, bigoted prejudice?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 05:10 PM

Next thing you know Jim, he'll be explaining how those unarmed activists were so overwhelmed by remorse at their rough treatment of the (as far as they could tell) heavily armed soldiers, that they committed suicide.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:07 AM

Back to stick my oar in again after days & days & days away.

Blimey, nothing's changed, has it? Jim & Don [esp Jim: occasional bit of something approaching sense from Don] still engaged in fatuous ad hominem attacks on poor old Keith, who manfully keeps his end up; without, needless to say, addressing any of his perfectly germane points & questions.

Ah well ~~ par for the course, as they say.

Ho-hum. Think I'll go back to bed...

❤xxxMxxx❤

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:26 AM

Sleep well Michael.

Don, you can make unfunny jokes, but you can not challenge a single one of my facts, or put up any counter evidence at all.

So, you are being laughed at, but not for the pathetic "jokes."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:06 AM

"poor old Keith,"
Yes MIke - Keith continues with his shyster-lawyer-type "but my client says he didn't do it Your Honour" defence of war crimes and atrocities, and you give him your occasional paternal nod of approval, Oblomov-like, from the comfort of your bed.
As you say - nothing changes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:09 AM

If the prosecution says he did it, but has no evidence at all, what would be the verdict?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:35 AM

You've had the evidence but choose to ignore it - or deny it without evidence of your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:43 AM

Round and round goes the jolly old thread
Till we could all scream off our heads...

〠〠〠〠〠〠〠 ☺☺☺☺☺☺ ☹☹☹☹☹☹

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:49 AM

Sorry - to be fair
"without evidence of your own"
Expept - "My client says he didn't do it your honour".
Finished here - I'll leave you and your sleeping partner to get on with your defence of Israeli atrocities.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 06:10 AM

Not that old ploy again Jim.
You have evidence but choose not to disclose it!
Laughable.

The only evidence for murder turned out to be a malicious lie.

Any denial of any of my stated facts?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 07:11 AM

"without evidence of your own"
Expept - "My client says he didn't do it your honour".

Evidence that the deaths may have been self defence.

1.The boarders held only paintball guns, with pistols in closed holsters on their backs.

2.While making a legal boarding, pre-planned attempts were made to murder them.

3.Many "aid workers" were videoed using steel and iron fittings from the ship to make deadly clubs.

4.The "aid workers" were videoed using both hands to swing iron clubs from above their heads onto the soldiers' bodies, clubbing them into helpless submission, disarming at least one, and throwing another over a 20 foot drop.

5.Many of the "aid workers" had expressed a determination to die killing Jews.

Any challenge?
Any counter evidence? (that you are prepared to reveal!)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 07:44 AM

So there you have it folks.

Keith the "fair minded" (self styled) has established to his own complete satisfaction that the Israeli government and the (Nuclear Armed) IDF are just sweet innocent down home folks, who wouldn't hurt a fly, being victimised by those nasty Palestinians.

Palestinians who are of course all (from five to ninety years old) terrorists, or being used as hostages by terrorists, which makes them legitimate targets for heavy artillery, aerial attack, incendiaries, modern automatic weapons etc. etc.

WP (cunningly disguised as illuminations (watch out Blackpool) or smoke screen (I've never quite worked out how they can be both, given the thick white blanket they produce) is justified as a legitimate means of screening Israeli forces so the enemy can't chuck rocks at them, and can fired into buildings apparently ("oh no! They shouldn't have done that says Keith, still, it's only a mistake").

Meanwhile, those cunning terrorists are mounting a vicious and prolonged series of savage attacks upon innocent Israeli citizens by firing rockets which are home made (admitted by Keith), with sufficient aiming capabilities to hit a medium size town (sometimes).

This of course makes them war criminals, because the IDF are not hiding behind them, being far too busy kicking the crap out of Palestinian "hostages".

This little precis of Keith's oft repeated position seems somehow to lack balance.

Jim says the rocket attacks are not justifiable, and neither is the response.

I say both sides are at fault, and that both need to acknowledge that and get the job done before Akhmedinejad completes his nuclear plans and converts the whole bloody lot into smoke and cinders.

I'm done arguing against an impregnable closed mind and Keith is welcome to keep on keeping on on his own.

Don T.