BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

"No I have not and you can not provide an example because there is none."
You have described them as 'smoke bombs' and implied that they are harmless throughout this discussion.
"No government on Earth agrees with you Jim."
Most governments have signed an agreement saying that they should not be used in the vicinity of civilians - Israel, the US and Saddam Hussain are among the few who have used them in such a manner.
"You and the others lapped it up."
I have made no comment on the deaths and injuries on the ship apart from comparing the weapons carried by the Israelis with the makeshift ones used for defence by the relief crew.
I described the incident as Israel's Sharpville, as it has also been in the press, because of the political impact it has had on Israel's image; pretty much the same as that on apartheid South Africa. It was a display of political ruthlessness, no less, and purts into contact Isreal's and their apologists' contempt for human rights.
"Then the videos showed Israel's account to be much closer to the truth."
The Israeli government have refused to co-operate with a UN investigation and insist on being their own judge and jury ONCE MORE - a fact that you have persistantly ignored. If they have nothing to hide, WHY?
"The damage quickly repaired."
Oh, that's all right then, let's attack a few more hospitals with heavy weapons as long as the damage can be repaired at a later date.
I find it interesting that 'gullibility' was one of the terms being bandied about (along with "the inventions of wingeing Yids" by one Tory MP), when the reports were coming out about the gas chambers - as I said, 'holocaust denier just about sums you up' - and still on your own, despite describing the rest of the world as 'gullible'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM

I have NEVER implied they were harmless.
I have always stated the opposite.
Prove me wrong?

"Most governments have signed an agreement saying that they should not be used in the vicinity of civilians"
Really? What agreement is that and what weapons are OK on civilians?

"The Israeli government have refused to co-operate with a UN investigation"
They have agreed to co-operate.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 12:55 PM

The truly gullible take the IDF's word.

>>"The Israeli government have refused to co-operate with a UN investigation"
They have agreed to co-operate.<<

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 01:25 PM

"I have NEVER implied they were harmless."
That is exactly what you have done - I believe you have claimed to have used them yourself somewhere above"
Show me where you have once acknowledged the damage they do to people.
"Really? What agreement is that and what weapons are OK on civilians?"
At the time of the Fallujah massacre there was a claim similar to your own that they were used as cover - read the press debate I posted. The US denied they used them on civilians but in the light of the evidence (posted above) they backed down. They have refused to sign up to their total non-use, Israel have not even botherd to do that and have just used them on civilians anyway - and you have continually claimed that they only used them for cover. READ YOUR OWN POSTINGS.
Are you now saying that they are lethal as described my me and others and that the Israelis used them on civilians, thus making themselves war criminals?
"They have agreed to co-operate"
Last week they backed out of co-operation with the UN Human Rights team.
This morning it was reported that they would re-enter negotiations with the Palestinians, probably for the reasons I suggested above - as far as I am aware their refusal to co-operate with the investigation remains - do you have any different information?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 01:49 PM

Jim,

YOU have stated that the invaded are not bound by any laes of war, but can do whatever they need to do to drive out the invader.

Since the Arab population is within the territory of the 1923 Mandate Palestine Jewish Homeland, they are invaders and Israel has no requirement to follow ANY laws.

THAT is what YOU have stated: If you disagree, than the Palestinians have no right to what they are doing: If you think that they have some special rights, then you are stating that Israelis are less human than Palestinians- and that is bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

>>Since the Arab population is within the territory of the 1923 Mandate Palestine Jewish Homeland, they are invaders<<

beardedbruce that among the dumbest things you have ever said on this forum.

a. Britain was an occupier when it made that mandate. Local Arab speaking Palestinians were not consulted.
b. The "Palestinian Jews" gave up any right to the terms of that mandate when they themselves engaged in terrorism against the British. Even more so after the terrorism and outright warfare by those Jews induced the British to leave.
c. Under no sane definition can the term "invader" be applied to a person who has occupied the same piece of land for generations.
d. It also cannot be applied to people who were kicked off land to make room for the European Jews who now inhabit it. The tens of thousands of refugees in Gaza are in no way invaders.

The truly gullible make such claims.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:14 PM

Jim, "Show me where you have once acknowledged the damage they do to people."
20th July White phosphorous is nasty stuff,
I do not condone Israel's use of WP where it endangered civillians.
I deplored it.
21st July The use close to civillians was reckless and deplorable,
22nd July You will see that I have not supported its use in Gaza.
I said it was wrong and deplorable. It could also be illegal.
I will say again that I have not supported the use of WP in Gaza
It is dangerous, but not a targetted weapon.
I have said all along that its use in Gaza was reckless and possibly illegal.
25th July Emma, I agree WP is too dangerous to use in populated areas
Everyone knows that phosphorus burns
26th july I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal.
Do I need to say again that I deplored its use here and said it might have been illegal?
I never suggested smoke was harmless. In fact I said all along that it should not have been used and may have been illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:15 PM

Jack, please explain your post.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

"YOU have stated that the invaded are not bound by any laes of war, "
I said that the invaded have a right to defend themselves - not that they are not bound by any conventions of war.
You and Keith have persistantly denied that right and excused Israel's war crimes on the Palestinian defensive/retailatory David v Goliath barrage, which it tantamount to unconditional surrender to Israel's demands.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:26 PM

Jack is trying to ignore the fact that the 1923 borders, which created the Arab Homeland of Transjordan from 77% of the Mandate Palestine, and left the remainder ( 23% ) as the Jewish Homeland was the last acknowledged borders that the Arabs agreed to. In 1948, they attacked the new state of Israel ( who, being outnumbered and outgunned, MUST have been supported by Jim)and took the West Bank ( and removed the almost the entire Christian and Jewish population).

It seems that there are many here that give rights to Arabs that they deny to Israelis- and I see nothing besides relegious bigotry for that- as BOTH populations have roots in the region, and BOTH were given homelands under the treaty that ended WWI-. AND Israel has returned ALL Jordanian territory taken in war- the West Bank is part of Israel according to the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.


If there is a problem with the 1923 borders, lets go back and negate them- and eliminate Lebenon, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan et al as well. It appears that ONLY the Jewish Homeland is subject to such a change- Anybody but Jews is the cry that I hear from some here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

Jim, YOU have constantly denied to Israel the right to defend themselves from attack- EVEN thought they have been invaded. Why is that?

Jews stopped standing in rows to be shot after WW II. Your wanting them to now will not make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM

Bruce please clarify your claim that people who have lived on land for generations are invaders?

Also in all of the population and history of the planet earth it is only European Jews that have claimed a land which they have vacated for 2000 years. This is not bigotry. It is a fact.

Dropping WP on a populated area is in no sane definition of defense.

Israel seems to think that what the Nazi's did to their ancestors they should be able to do to the Arab speaking Palestinians.

Israel thinks that their own terrorism and evil is righteous because they are fulfilling God's word.

All of these ideas are insane and they are the largest cause of strife on the planet.

Israelis have what rights they have by force of arms. Force of arms paid for with my taxes.

Arab speaking Palestinians have no rights. Israel denies their rights by force of arms.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:42 PM

"Since the Arab population is within the territory of the 1923 Mandate Palestine Jewish Homeland, they are invaders and Israel has no requirement to follow ANY laws."

Bruce, I think you need to look up the word "invade" in the dictionary.

To invade a place you have to come from somewhere else.

The Palestinians living in Gaza were all born within the borders of the mandate you apeak of, as were their parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc.

You are of course entitled to talk bollocks, but please at least make it look like you have a brain.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:58 PM

The Jews that settled under the Ottomans in the West Band had the right to stay there- UNTIL the Arabs removed them- So, I presume you suipport the return of the West Bank to those Jews?

Look at the 1923 treaty- Are you prepared to open up Jordan to Jewish immigration? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:11 PM

Bruce I don't support that 1923 "treaty" at all. It was imposed by occupiers. Nor do I recognize the legality of anything the Turks did as occupiers.

Nor do I believe that you recognize any treaty or international ruling that has gone against zionism, unless it is convenient to your case.

But I do not see multi-generational residents of a land as invaders and I do see the forced removal of such people to create and preserve a theocracy as a war crime. If the Jews want to live on that land they ought to do it democratically with their neighbors, one person one vote. To engage in warfare to do otherwise is uncivilized.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:33 PM

"But I do not see multi-generational residents of a land as invaders and I do see the forced removal of such people to create and preserve a theocracy as a war crime"

So do you agree that the 1948 forced removal of Jews from the West Bank was a war crime? How about the Christians?

Yes or no:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:43 PM

Rant and rave as much as you like - your description of the palestinians in Gaza as "invaders" is nothing short of delirious.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:47 PM

Sure.

It is all crime.

But one of the crimes is currently ongoing and we can do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

"20th July White phosphorous is nasty stuff,"
WP is not nasty stuff - it is poisonous, ands it kills and burns people; your description is insulting considering the damage it does - 'praising with faint damns' in fact.
You have stated categorically that the Israelis have not targeted civilians - not true.
Your postings are becoming hysterically confused - are you now admitting that the Israeli's use of phosphorus on civilian targets constitutes a war crime - please be specific?
"Jim, YOU have constantly denied to Israel the right to defend themselves"
No I haven't - I have said that an invaders should expect efforts to repel them. The Israelis are the aggressors here as far as I am concerned, they have used chemical weapons on occupied cities, they have invaded Palestinian territory with heavy weapons, tanks, armored cars, they have bombed civilian area, bombarded hospital and schools, even relief food supplies. Complaining about random shelling is like Goliath expecting David to throw away his sling.
"Jews stopped standing in rows to be shot after WW II. "
Once again you scurry behind the holocaust to make your argument - my grouse is with the Israeli government, not the Jewish people - and it never has been.
You appear to be doing what you have accused Hamas of doing - in this case, using the Jewish people as hostages.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

Read all my quotes. I have acknowledged the risk even of wp smoke, but it is not a chemical weapon. It is not a weapon at all.
You saying it does not make it true.
It was wrong to use it in a populated city but there is no evidence of targeting civilians.
It was used to screen their soldiers from their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:42 PM

"It was used to screen their soldiers from their enemies."
Now I am confused - those who were treated for burns were sitting too close to the fire - is that right?
And those who were maimed and burnt in Fallujah were out in the sun for too long????
And maybe the Wiki definition is wrong - and the clear descriptions by the Amesrican soldier and the scientists....
Mealy mouthed hypocritical cant. No change there then!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM

Keith one so "open minded" you sure talk a lot of nonsense. The WP was lobbed on people, schools hospitals, UN aid and houses in 155 mm howitzer shells from some distance away. You don't need a smoke screen in a heavily populated city. You can hide behind buildings. In fact smoke would draw attention to your position.

It was used as an offensive weapon to destroy civilian infrastructure and to punish the populace for voting for Hamas.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 06:04 PM

Jim, a direct hit or near miss from a smoke round can cause serious or fatal injuries.
Weapons intended to inflict casualties are deadly over much greater distances.
WP smoke is not recognised by governments as a chemical weapon or even a weapon. You clearly do not agree, but how much of an authority are you?
Jack, you may be a great sailor but you know little about soldiering.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM

Bear in mind that the IDF have been caught using tear gas canisters as weapons against peaceful demonstrators on numerous occasions, by deliberately aiming at their faces, and there is a consistent pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 02:58 AM

Lox, how close were they to the protesters?
I ask because the hand held launchers have no sights and short, unrifled barrels.
To aim at a face sized target you would have to be close enough to punch them anyway.

Re the smoke.
Accrding to IHS Jane's Weapons Technology Analyst commenting on the discussions surrounding the Israeli use of white phosherous agents in Gaza, "The round so far specified as being fired are the M825A1 which is purely an air-burst white phosherous smoke projectile." the analyst said. 'It's construction and function is highly elaborate and I would say deliberately so to make it inappropriate for anti-personnel use'. M825A1 shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. White Phosphorous weapons banned by theprotocol are ground or low level burst weapons designed primarily for anti-personnel use. The primary function of the M825A1 is for the rapid creation of a highly effective, but short lived visible and infrared smoke screen.
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0109/analysis/analysis_080109_phosphorous.html

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:21 AM

Keith:
Throughout this thread you have been maliciously obstructive in your support for Israeli brutality - you continue to be so.
You have deliberately attempted to disguise the effect of phosphorus by describing it as 'smoke' and have defended its use by repeating parrot-fashion that "WP smoke is not recognised by governments as a chemical weapon"
You have totally ignored the described effects it has had when used in civilian areas, both in Gaza and Fallujah, the statements by doctors and scientists on its properties, even the definition of the material itself.
You have continued to dismiss its illegality by ignoring or denying that it has been used in populated areas.
Your arrogant attitude, as displayed to Jack in your last posting, comes with no authority, or none that you have presented, or I'm sure it would have been crowed from the rooftops long before now - such is the ego that appears to motivate you.
If your argument throughout this thread has had any purpose at all, it has been to divert from the war crimes committed by the Israelis against Palestinian civilians, and now against those who would bring relief to a besieged people.
One can only imagine the arguments you would put up in support of Sharpville, Pinochet, Guantanamo, Fallujah.... and all of history's monsters and their adventures.
If you are owed any credit, it is for your tenacity in pursuing your cause to defend these people and their outrages. Well done - you have truely earned your place in the 'Holocaust Deniers Hall of Fame'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 04:01 AM

"Throughout this thread you have been maliciously obstructive in your support for Israeli brutality - you continue to be so"

It is a lie that I have supported ANYONE'S brutality.
Show one example. No chance.
How is it possible to be obstructive? How did I obstruct you Jim?
You post lies and nonsense about me.

"You have deliberately attempted to disguise the effect of phosphorus by describing it as 'smoke'"

It was a smoke producing munition. That is what it is for. That is what defines it and is how it is defined. Sorry if you can not understand that.

"and have defended its use by repeating parrot-fashion that "WP smoke is not recognised by governments as a chemical weapon" "

BECAUSE IT IS A FACT THAT YOU NEVER MANAGED TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND!

"You have totally ignored the described effects it has had when used in civilian areas"

That is another lie. I have acknowledged all its effects.

"You have continued to dismiss its illegality by ignoring or denying that it has been used in populated areas"

Another lie. We all understood that from the start. That is what this discussion is about.

"Your arrogant attitude, as displayed to Jack in your last posting, comes with no authority,"

Jack was wrong to dismiss the tactical value of smoke here.
You do not need to be a great authority to know that.

Your final string of insults were simply beneath contempt and I will not raise them out of the gutter to refute.

If you can not engage in reasoned, honest debate you do not belong here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 05:31 AM

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" - especially one who had no compunction in describing those who opposed his arguments as "Fascist" while he was being an apologist for the massacre of 14 unarmed demonstrators on Bloody Sunday.
One of us certainly doesn't belong here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:00 AM

More lies about me.
I was never an apologist for those who killed. I denounced them.

I described as fascist your support for using military might to force a population to change their chosen form of government.
I stand by that.
It had nothing to do with us disagreeing.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:13 AM

"Lox, how close were they to the protesters?
I ask because the hand held launchers have no sights and short, unrifled barrels.
To aim at a face sized target you would have to be close enough to punch them anyway."

This is all irrelevant.

Firstly, the whole idea of a tear gas canister launcher is that you point it in a particular direction and it fires tha canister there and not anywhere else.

So thats what they did.

But thats just nit picking.

The evidence is the videos in which you hear the soldiers saying "aim at the face" and this is then supported by the numerous facial injuries that have been sustained from tear gas canisters fired with malicious intent.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM

If true, the individual soldiers are misbehaving.
If video exists, action could and should be brought against them, as has happened previously to Israeli soldiers.
Or, are you suggesting that their government ordered them to do that?

Can you link us to these videos?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM

I am not calling you a liar Lox, but I do think you have been mislead.
A rifle is a hundred times more accurate than a cannister launcher, but even with that soldiers are trained to aim for centre of mass, to increase chance of hitting at all.
And, standing unsupported is the least effective firing position for accuracy.
It is just fanciful to believe that with a cannister launcher you can do more than point it in a general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 08:40 AM

Will the countries which mobilized the flotillas of humanitarian aid for their Muslim brothers in Gaza do the same for the beleaguered people of Pakistan who have been left homeless, hungry and battling disease due to the flooding caused by the monsoon rains?

I put this question to Tarek Fatah, activist, writer, broadcaster and founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress. This is his reply: "I doubt it very much; we are too dark-skinned to deserve a flotilla. So, in exchange, Our 'brothers' have sent us tonnes of 'prayers' and 'chants' along with the consignment of AK-47s, an arsenal of IDU components and clerics to pray for the dead.".

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 09:01 AM

"I doubt it very much;"

so neither of you knows then ...

here is the IHH homepage detailing the humanitarian help they are currently engaged in.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 10:53 AM

Keith A, I've read reports where the IDF has claimed to have fired WP rounds from 155 howitizers on "enemy positions."

I have read reports of schools, houses, aid and civilians which have been burned by airbursts of WP.

Janes is a good source of technical information, but this statement does nothing to make your case.

>>>he round so far specified as being fired are the M825A1 which is purely an air-burst white phosherous smoke projectile." the analyst said. 'It's construction and function is highly elaborate and I would say deliberately so to make it inappropriate for anti-personnel use'. M825A1 shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. <<

The phrase "so far specified" means there may have been other types of rounds used. Even so a 767 jetliner is also not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to fly people around. But those firemen and office workers in the twin towers are still dead.

You are a poorly informed apologist for terrorism and mass murder. I have nothing more to say to you.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 12:06 PM

"Will the countries which mobilized the flotillas of humanitarian aid for their Muslim brothers in Gaza "
A totally illogical and destructive argument and one usually put by someone with an axe to grind.
There are thousands of causes to give your support to - the logic of your argument is that we support none of them because we can't support them all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM

Jack, "the round so far specified.."
There have been no updates, and it was a long time ago.
Those were the rounds used Jack, and there is a familiar illustration of the airburst.
So you really do not have anything else to say to me Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:11 PM

No, not on that topic.

You haven't bothered to read what anyone else has said. There is no point.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 05:54 PM

We are all fallible Jack.
Jim had not read any of that long piece about Fallujah.
We can help each other.
Point out one thing I have missed or failed to respond to Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:00 PM

"It is just fanciful to believe that with a cannister launcher you can do more than point it in a general direction"

I have seen footage of those WP airbursts - have also done the pyro (fireworks) course - and thy DO look pretty - and spread the burning junk over a large area - where, as previously agreed to by all, they will melt skin off ...

Dropping a large cannister of napalm is also very inaccurate, but it's still bloody effective, even just as a terror weapon "bloody hell, if they're gonna throw those things around, I'm outta here" ... unless it IS your home....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:25 PM

"Historical footnote. The word "gullible" was accidently omitted by Dr Sam Johnson from his original dictionary, and to this day it is not found in any printed dictionary out of respect for the great man. "

More delusional ramblings hoping to brainwash us gullible dupes ... sigh... It's a regular 1 April joke mate - I have a wall full of dictionaries next to me, and more at my own home - many general English ones as well as specific area one, eg computing, nursing, (2 at random) and others...

Etymology

Either gull +‎ -ible, or from dialect Middle English gull ("newly hatched bird"), perhaps from Old Norse gulr, from the hue of its down.

    * "credulity" in Roget's Thesaurus, T. Y. Crowell Co., 1911.
    * "gullible" in Moby Thesaurus II, Grady Ward, 1996.


http://www.wordswarm.net/dictionary/gullible.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=gullible

Hey, Did You Know the Word "Gullible" isn't in the Dictionary? - entry for 1 April ...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:27 PM

Dropping a large rocket of explosives with a ball-bearing casing to maximize civilian casualties is also very inaccurate, but it's still bloody effective, even just as a terror weapon "bloody hell, if they're gonna throw those things around, I'm outta here" ... unless it IS your home....


But then, I hear NO complaints about the illegal bombardment of ISRAELI civilians from many here...


How about the dead Jordanian ( from the last batch of rockets launched from the Sinai?)? ANybody want to say how inhuman the launchers of THOSE rockets were???



Or is it ONLY when Israelis kill Arabs that you give a damn?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM

Ah - Bearded Bruce ...

... SO you agree that the use of WP in this context is comparable to the random terror inflicted by the men who criminally fire the rockets into Israel from Gaza.

You agree that the use of WP is criminal and terrorist and intended to maim and injure if not kill.


Lets have a discussion about the rockets.

Their use is a crime.

Anyone disagree?

No.

ok discussion over.

How about a dscussion about WP.

Its use is a crime.

Anyne disagree?

yes lots of people.

ok - discussion ongoing.


... where were we?

Ah yes - the use of WP is akin to the use of rockets against civilians ...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 06:49 PM

Bruce.

Noone is defending Hamas rocket attacks.

we all agree that they are BAD.


The only argument remaining is the one about Israeli attacks against Palestinians.

These are being defended on this thread.


ergo - a discussion.


so we all condemn the murders of Israelis by palestinians.

But you and others on here do not condemn the much greater number of murders of Palestinians by Israelis.


So stop whingeing and moralizing because the only ones on here who show any contempt for arab lives, and the only ones apologizing for murder, on this website are those who are defending the Israelis proportionally much greater agression.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 07:00 PM

No.

I merely point out that f it were illegal weapons that were being complained about, there would be at least SOME mention of the Palestinian ones. Since there has not been, those people must have no objection to illegal weapons: It is Jews being allowed to defend themselves that they find offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 07:56 PM

That is some of the most mealy mouthed twisting of views and creation of straw men that I have ever witnessed.

That was not your implication.

Your implcation was unambiguous that if critics of Israel truly care about dead arabs then they would be discussing the rockets too.

Your implication was clearly that critics of Israel are therefore not motivated by care for dead arabs.

Your insinuation was that therefore critics of Israel must be driven by another hidden motivation.


Now you state that critics of Israel are motivated only by bigotry against Jews.

Well Bruce let me spell it out again.


WE ALL CONDEMN THE ROCKETS.

HENCE NO DISCUSSION.



YOU DEFEND CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS

HENCE THERE IS A DISCUSSION.



WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT ISRAELIS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE FIRED UPON.

YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT PALESTINIANS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE FIRED UPON.


YOU DEFEND ISRAELS RIGHT TO KILL PALESTINIANS.


AND IF SOMEONE DISAGREES YOU SAY IT IS BECAUSE THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST JEWS.


You've spelled it out very clearly.

Thank you for clarifying your position as a hypocrite and a wholly partisan bigot.


You are one fucked up individual.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 09:16 PM

Israel-Lebanon border clash kills five people

The Lebanese army says Israeli soldiers crossed the border to uproot a tree which was blocking their view near the Lebanese village of Adaysseh.

A Lebanese army spokesman said troops had fired warning shots and Israel had responded with fire from artillery positions and helicopters.

The Lebanese army confirmed to the BBC that three of its soldiers had been killed and four wounded. The al-Akhbar newspaper confirmed that one of its journalists, Assaf Abu Rahhal, had also been killed.

Hezbollah fighters, who battled Israel four years ago, took no part in the exchange of fire. But Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the group would not stand silent if Israel attacked the Lebanese army in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IDF WP bursts clearly visible on news footage - if 'only for cover' - why are they targeting Lebanese positions?

~~~~~~~~~~
"Lebanon's Higher Council for Defense headed by President Michel Suleiman said it held Israel accountable for Tuesday's clash and it would complain to the U.N. Security Council.

Israeli complained to the U.N Security Council over the clash, saying it held the government of Lebanon responsible. "

But - he hit me back first!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 09:18 PM

"But then, I hear NO complaints about the illegal bombardment of ISRAELI civilians from many here..."

You sir are an out right liar if you are speaking about me ...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:44 AM

Foolestroupe, I was afraid no one would fall for the gullible joke.
Not only did you oblige, but you then compounded it by accepting without question the Lebanese version of the recent clash.

Israel and Lebanon both agree that Lebanese troops fired first.
Lebanon said they fired because Israelis crossed the border.

The UN peacekeepers were very quickly on the scene.
The border is fenced.
They say there was absolutely no evidence of an Israeli incursion across the border.

Re the WP smoke deployment.
The munitions are vey dangerous and can and did cause some casualties, but they are not designed to cause casualties, are legal and most armed forces use them.
No evidence has been produced that civillians were targeted.
The smoke was deployed to screen troops from their enemies.
I think they should have accepted the risk to their troops rather than put civilians at risk, but I do not have a son in the IDF.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM

1800...and no comment!

GfS