Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:50 AM

No Keith - you've had it LOOK for IT YOURSELF

I have looked.
There is nothing.
If there was you would attack me with it.
You lie.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 07:43 AM

Jim,

Not anly are you a bigot, YOU CANT READ!

"
I am the person who pointed out that your post of

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM

ignored the fact that the UN DID conduct the investigation, and found NO MASSACRE."

REFERS TO Jenin ONLY

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:16 AM

"made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation."
"No chemical weapons at all. No massacres at all. "
Is there any point whatever in proceeding with this farce?
Which of the above statements is really yours - the one where you claim there to have been "No massacres at all" or the one where you say you have "made clear by repeated statements that I do not deny massacres, or even Israeli participation."
One way or the other, you are lying in the face of your own statements.
Jenin
REFERS TO Jenin ONLY
I am not interested in nit-picking about individual massacres - there are plenty of others to replace "marginal" ones - The description of tese 'non-massacres' makes them fully-blown atrocities against civilians - if these are not massacres they certainly count as crimes against civilians.
Your bully thuggishness throughout these threads reflects those you support - take your Zionist cause and shove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
Sabra /Shatila massacres
Probably the most comprehensive eye-witness description of the massacre which corresponds to everything I have read and watched down the years
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1177434535
IDF and Christian milia massacre of sabra and shatila - Video #1
The Forgotten massacre of sabra and shatila . a crime against humanity committed by the Israeli soldiers and Christian militia against Palestinian families in southern Lebanon refugee camps " Sabra and Shatila in 1982 " ------------------ * Sabra-Shatila Massacre: In September 1982, just a few weeks after the Palestinian men had surrendered their weapons under an internationally brokered peace deal, and were deported from Beirut leaving their families under the protection of an international peace keeping force, the Israeli army invaded Beirut, violating the peace treaty, and some 3000 defenceless Palestinian women and children were rounded up in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and systematically murdered in cold blood. (For a repeat of this tragedy see Srebrenica in 1995 - only that time it was 8000 Muslim men who were slaughtered after they had handed their weapons to the UN forces who had guaranteed them a "safe haven")................... The slaughter of unarmed children, women, the aged and the infirm was shocking. For me, I was doubly outraged that I had to discover the truth about a brave and generous people only through their deaths. Until then, I never knew Palestinian refugees existed. As a fundamentalist Christian, I had been a supporter of Israel, hated Arabs and saw the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as terrorists to be loathed and feared."

Extract from the back cover of her book "From Beirut To Jerusalem" ............

Timeline of the Massacre
This is a reconstructed timeline of the events leading up to the massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, as well as the event itself. Most of the information is based on the findings of New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman (as quoted in his article "U.S. PRESSES ISRAEL TO LET U.N. TROOPS MOVE INTO BEIRUT" in the September 20, 1982 issue of The New York Times), whose collection of credible personal witness-accounts as well as those of other reporters have greatly contributed to form this reconstruction of the actual timeline. In addition, information has been taken from Friedman's September 27th, 1982, New York Times article ("ISRAELI GENERAL IN BEIRUT SAYS HE DID NOT KNOW OF KILLINGS") as well as from the report issued by the Israeli Kahan commission of inquiry.
Tuesday, September 14th, 1982
Morning - President-elect Bashir Gemayel is assassinated
Ariel Sharon and Israeli Lt. Gen Eytan decide to send Phalange into camps
Wednesday, September 15th
Morning - Israeli tanks move into Muslim West Beirut
Eytan orders Phalange to mobilize
Afternoon- Area around Sabra and Shatila surrounded by Israeli troops
Israeli checkpoints are set up
First sightings of Christian militiamen heading into Beirut from the airport
Evening- Exchanges of gunfire and shelling in the camps (slight number of casualties)
Trucks carrying Phalange militiamen reported heading towards the airport
Thursday, September 16th
Morning- Constant shooting and shelling in Shatila
Phalange commanders meet with Israeli Gen. Drori to coordinate entry of militia
Afternoon - 1,200 to 1,400 Christian militiamen gathered together at the airport
Evening- Phalangist checkpoints are set up
Christian militiamen enter Sabra and Shatila refugee camps under command
Of Phalange chief Mr. Hobeika, encounter little resistance, round up dozens
Of civilians
Israeli forces receive information on atrocities from witnesses, intercepted
Phalange radio transmissions
First wounded and casualties arrive at area hospitals with gunshot and shrapnel
wounds in the head, chest and stomach; Patients specify Phalangist role
Night- Israeli forces light flares over camps to provide light to militiamen inside
Friday, September 17th
Morning- Over 1,000 Palestinians from Sabra and Shatila seek protection around Gaza Hospital
Hundreds of Palestinians are reportedly rounded up by Phalange militia in Shatila
Gen. Drori calls for halt of operations
Arriving Phalange turned back at airport
Afternoon- Gen. Drori meets Gen. Eytan, does not discuss killings, orders 5 A.M. withdrawal
Of Phalange militia
Trucks loaded with women and children leave camps
Bulldozers with scoops full of bodies are reported seen in camps
Israelis provide Phalange with provisions
Nurse on 8th Floor of Gaza hospital killed by sniper fire
82 Patients flee hospital, Red Cross evacuates 6 babies
Christian militia takes over Akka Hospital, Palestinian nurse raped and shot, Two
Palestinian doctors and one patient taken out of hospital by militia, Two doctors
And two nurses killed by grenade
Evening- Shooting still going on inside Shatila
Saturday, September 18th
Morning- Phalange leave camps at 8 A.M.
Christian militia enters Gaza hospital, orders everyone out, shelter-seekers are
Rounded up, 600 Palestinian civilians are forced to march main street of Shatila
At gunpoint
Reporters are allowed to enter the camps
Lebanese army moves into camps
Recovery efforts begin
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM

Don,


"True BB, they didn't ""randomly bombard Gaza with antipersonnel rockets directed at the civilian population-"", they used White phosphorus, heavy artillery and aerial attacks, all very deliberately and efficiently aimed."

AIMED at the rocket launch points- which any fair-minded person would consider a legitimate target. The FACT that these points were in civilian areas IS A WAR CRIME on the part of the Palestinians.




"Every time Israel expands its settlements in its neighbour's territory, that is an attack."

WHOSE territory???

I have shown, WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT FROM YOU OR JIM that the West Bank is currently Israeli territory. Yes, ISRAEL has offered to give it up in trade for peace, BUT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE NOT AGREED TO THAT. Thus, it remains Israeli property.


So, since it is the Palestinians WHO ARE ATTACKING Israel's territory, with every rocket launch, Israel is justified in taking far harsher action than they have.





As for "ethnic cleansing,

HOW MANY ARAB MOSLIMS LIVE IN ISRAEL?
HOW MANY JEWS LIVE IN ARAB NATIONS?

Compare these numbers to the figures in 1940 or 1945, and THEN talk to me.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM

Jim,

"I am not interested in nit-picking about individual massacres - there are plenty of others to replace "marginal" ones - The description of tese 'non-massacres' makes them fully-blown atrocities against civilians - if these are not massacres they certainly count as crimes against civilians."

As long as YOU continue to lie about SOME of them, YOUR posts about any have no validity- YOU ARE A LYING BIGOT WHOSE POSTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUE.

As for massacres, how about those of Jews BY Palestinins??

BTW,

Still waiting...

"
I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Palestinians have treated the Jews in their territories, and gotten no reply.

I am also the person who asked if you wanted the Israelis to treat the Palestinians as the Arab nations have treated them ( from 1948 to present), and gotten no answer.

I am also the person who asked why the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank ( 1948-1967) gave them NO right to go back, but the Palestinians who left Israel ( a minority) get the right that YOU deny to Jews?"

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:40 AM

Jim,

In addition, how about massacres of palestinians by other ARAB nations? THAT is fine by you, it seems- you just get unhappy if you think Jews might defend themselves.

As for brutish thuggishness, I have seen a lot of that here- BY YOU. If you have NO support for what you want to prove, attacking those who disagree with you is just a demonstration of that.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:41 AM

"As long as YOU continue to lie about SOME of them, "
NO I DON'T LIE ABOUT them Keith is the liar here with his contradictory claims - and you dissemble wit your diversive tactics
Do I want Israelis to treat Palestinians....
I suppport no side in this argument - the barbarism of "an eye for an eye" belongs where it originated - in the Bible Book of Fables
Of course the massacre of anybody is wrong Jews, Muslims... and by denying it is happening will nly perpetuate it - and religious fanaticism of any brand is one guarantee that it will continue - so you may shove yours with your accusations of bigotry.
If there has been ethnic cleansing, which I doubt, it is no excuse for further ethic cleansing - and where do you thing the Bedouins feature in all this?
As I said - stick your Zionist bigotry as far as it will go - it kills people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:16 AM

Jim: I supported Keith in no racism on that long-since Pakistani thread; I simply pointed out that you provided no convincing instance of his having expressed any, but were simply convicting him in your own 'made-up-so-don't-confuse-me-with-facts' mind on the grounds of some statements you had taken your doctrinaire exception to in earlier threads.

Your counter-warning to me about this is mere evasive 'whataboutery', in no way contradictive of my pointing out that it is no use your constantly denying being antisemitic while you persist in employing a usage which you know, because you have repeatedly been told so, is widely, even universally, accepted as antisemitic. Whatever misinterpretations you might have put on posts of mine on previous threads, only tenuously, if at all, related to this one, the fact is not altered that YOU PERSIST IN ADOPTING A USAGE WHICH YOU KNOW TO BE INTRINSICALLY ANTISEMITIC, and then come on all wounded 'poor-misunderstood-me' if accused of antisemitism.

You can't have it both ways, Jim. Stop using the word "Holocaust" in relation to Israel or we shall all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an antisemite. What Keith or I may or may not think of Pakistanis who interfere with girls in Bradford, like ♫the flowers that bloom in the spring tra-la♫ {W S Gilbert, The Mikado} has nothing to do with the case.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:30 AM

Jim,

The facts show that

1. There HAS been ethnic cleansing BY THE ARAB MOSLIMS from 1948 to 1967
1. The Fact of Israeli ethnic cleansing is not yet determined one way or the other. Looking at the Arab population of Israel vs the Jewish population of Arab nations, you are hard pressed to justify the claim, but feel free to try.If you have factual statements to make, rather than lying rants by known bigots, feel free to present them.

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.


I understand you may not want to consider answering a question, when you can rant about the person who disagrees with you, but I would like to know which YOU think is the best course of action for the Palestinians to hope for.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM

Jim, you are being dishonest.
When I posted, "no massacres" we had only ever discussed Sabra and Shatila in the whole thread.
That was the whole context, as made clear in my following post.
It was the shortest of posts followed by a clarification and only referring to Israeli invovement in massacres of Sabra and Shatila.

(You have now provided some evidence after over a month of asking and denying.
Thank you.)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 10:54 AM

"Jim, you are being dishonest."
NO I AM NOT - WE HAVE CONSTANTLY DISCUSSED MASSACRES - WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WROTE WAS NO MASSACRES AT ALL indicating that you were referring to all of them that had been pointed out to you,
Is there no end to your lying?
And your lying about having a source for your " Male Pakistani implant" claim.....?
Mike,
I was just looking through your hysterical torrent of abuse at my observing similarities between the massacre of Jews and the massacre of Palestinians. I wuld have found it deeply insulting if it had not come from somebody who sees no racism in the claim that "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant which makes them sexual threats to young girls"
The fact that you now write this off as "some statements you had taken your doctrinaire exception to" confirms me that you are both a hypocrite and a closet (highly selective) racist - so please feel free to regard me as an Anti-Semite if you feel it covers your own racism in any way.
Don't you take exceptioon to such blatent racist stereotyping - silly question, of course you don't!!
- I HAVE NEVER COMPARED LIKE WITH LIKE, nor would I, but the slaughter of any group of human beings because they are in the way of political or territorial ambition is bound to attract such claims of similarities as far as I'm concerned.
"1. Continue to treat the Palestinians the way they are presently"
You mean to continue the persecution, humiliation, attempts to starve them into submission...
How about treating them as the human beings they are....
Whatever the military and political problems, the Israelis claim to fame has been the deliberate slaughter and persecution of civilians - now apparently even accepted by Keith - albeit grudgingly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 11:13 AM

Jim,

As usual, you fail to address the question, and make claims without any factual basis.

I take it you have nothing worthwhile to even say, from your reply.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 11:55 AM

... &, Jim, you miss, or deliberately avoid, my point with continued inaccurate counter-accusatory irrelevancies. You are clearly impressing nobody with your demagogic rants which fail to engage with any question you are asked or any point made to you.

You are doing yourself very little credit, I fear.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 12:00 PM

NO I AM NOT - WE HAVE CONSTANTLY DISCUSSED MASSACRES - WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WROTE WAS NO MASSACRES AT ALL indicating that you were referring to all of them that had been pointed out to you,

Not true Jim.
I read right through the old thread up to that post.
Only those 2 massacres discussed.
Deny that?
I did a quick 5 word post (not counting "at alls") and clarified when I had time next post.
It was just about those 2 massacres.

That was over a month of solid debate ago and I have never denied all massacres.

Deny that?

If you have to resort to dishonesty to make your case, is it worth making Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 12:03 PM

Israelis claim to fame has been the deliberate slaughter and persecution of civilians - now apparently even accepted by Keith - albeit grudgingly.
I have accepted the evidence you have finally provided.
It is not as convincing as you suggest.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:50 PM

There really is no question butbthat there have been numerous massacres carried out in this cobnflict iover the years. Some by Paletinians or their allies, but far more by Israeli forces, and these have resulted in far more deaths.

I remember putting up a link to a neutral source listing all of these up to the date it was produced, a list which provided links to information about all of them. I can't recall whether it was on this thread or its predecessor.

Unfortunately "there were no masscres" is pretty well never true, wherever you look, in any conflict, and much of the time when there isn't even a conflict. Here is a link to a list by country, with links to details..

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:41 AM

No-one is claiming "no massacres"!

To make that claim against me, Jim had to go back nearly a thousand posts in two threads to find a hurried post where I appear to deny all massacres, but only if you ignore the context of the previous posts (just Sabra/Shatila), ignore the clarification I gave in the following post (just Sabra/Shatila), and ignore the fact that in the subsequent month of posting on the same subject I never made such a ludicrous claim again!

It was a false and dishonest attempt to deceive.
Like deleting "citation needed" warnings from a cut and paste.
Like his smear campaign against me as a person.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:52 AM

I do remeber Your List kevin, and I worked through a large number.

There is a striking difference between those attributed to Israel and Palestinians.

Israeli ones usually involve a possible over-reaction or disproportionate response to a genuine security challenge.

Palestinian ones tend to be planned and deliberate, like a bomber picking out a bus carrying many Jewish children.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 04:33 AM

Jim, in your 18 Nov 11 - 10:54 AM post you put something in quotes and attributed it to me.
I never made such a statement and never would.
It does not represent my views.
It is another lie.

If you have to be dishonest to make a case, it is not worth making Jim.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM

Keith - you continue to lie - somewhat desperately
"No massacres at all" mean exactly that -"No massacres at all"
You now appear to be inventing a context in which it means something else.
You have backed up your claim by denying every single Israli atrocity that has been placed before you.
Mike
A simple acid test:
Please replace Keith's "every make Pakistani" with "every Jewish male" and tell me that it is not offensive racism - look forward to your response with some interest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM

PS By the way Keith - you originally claimed that yor "no massacres at all" referred to Jenin - cn't you even stick to your own script???
Back to the West Clare festival of Traditional singing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 09:55 AM

Jim, when you accused me of saying it, I thought you meant recently.
I had recently said "no massacre" about Jenin.
How was I to know you had gone back to a previous thread and a previous month??
Do you suppose I meant there has never been a massacre in history?
Or even in the history of Palestine?

Why did you not challenge such an extraordinary and absurd statement at the time?
Answer, because we were just talking about Israel's guilt for Sabra and Shatila.
I had not time for a full answer that day, but the context was clear enough and anyway I clarified it IN MY NEXT POST.
Have I made such a ludicrous denial before or since?

You are a dishonest man.
For the sake of a debating point on a Mudcat thread you make a liar of yourself.

I remind you that you faked a quote yesterday.
You must know what I really said after all the arguments about it, but you need to lie to stand up your baseless smear.
Contemptible.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 10:03 AM

Jim ~~ Fair challenge. The quote you refer to is some time since. Can you copy/paste it for me to reconsider, with a date/time ref? If precisely as you word it, I should certainly find it objectionable; but it is so far of yore that I will need to have it presented back precisely. I am honestly not even sure on what thread to look for it. My recolleciton is that I was not supporting all Keith's views at the time, but endeavouring simply to confine the discussion to the particular news item as to some disproportion in certain offences brought to trial in specific locations, to the distress of several prominent people incl leading Muslims; but the thread kept getting muddied by accusations given rise by this, of a sort of general racism not applicable to the specific instances.

The quick answer to your question as you put it above is that of course I would not regard it as an acceptable proposition; but I shall need a bit more confirmation that precisely such terms were ever used of any demographic.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 11:33 AM

Here is the post Michael.
Please read previous posts to get it in context.
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2602&page=12#3094279

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 12:28 PM

Thank you, Keith. I still am a bit vague about it all; but I seem to recall, Jim, thanks to this reminder, that it was not just Keith who was trying to keep the thread on track in relation to a particular set of statistics recently published; but Lizzie, Bruce, and several others as well as myself; in the face of some point-missing (& in at least one case abusively inaccurate speculations as to my excretory arrangements on which I do not need to be more specific} denunciations of racism from some others. I can't see that anything was said particularly similar to the remark you think I should take exception to if it related to Jews rather than to Pakistanis: I am not aware of any Jewish activity resulting in a statistic of the sort we were addressing ourselves to having ever been referenced, except conceivably in Nürnberg in 1934 where the Will was Triumphant, or having ever featured in any news medium. If any such Jewish-based statistic had arisen for consideration then the case would be altered, would it not? I cannot know for sure in the abstract how I would react to any conclusion that might be drawn from consideration of such a phenomenon.

Hope that addresses your point, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:06 PM

""Stop using the word "Holocaust" in relation to Israel or we shall all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an antisemite.""

Michael, purely in the interests of balance in debate, do you not at times feel that the Israelis are much too inclined to use their victim status as a weapon to prevent criticism of their actions?

Whenever anybody attempts to take them to task for their arrogance and intransigence (both of which you have acknowledged to exist) they are likely to respond with a reference, direct or implied, to the Holocaust.

The phrase "What's sauce for the goose....etc" does tend to present itself, even to those of us who are not "anti" anyone.

We have a number of people on this thread who are, like myself and you, of the opinion that both sides need to give way to some extent, and ranged against us a few who cannot abide any criticism of Israel, and cannot countenance the idea of Israel being in the slightest responsible for the present hostilities.

This situation, expanded to the World at Large, explains why Israel feels empowered to do exactly as it wishes, regardless of the cost in human life, and call any and all objectors anti semites.

Perhaps you see it differently, but from where I sit Jim's comment, while undiplomatic, has some merit and is worthy of discussion rather than dismissal with accusations of anti semitism.

Perhaps if he had made the same statement using an alternative word?....but then that would have simply been a euphemism.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:31 AM

No, it wouldn't have been a euphemism, I don't think, Don: it isn't a euphemisable word IMO. We have had the precise connotations of 'Massacre' discussed to death[!] on this thread: that is no euphemism, but a perfectly apposite word to call on in the context. But "Nazi" & "Holocaust", with their overtones ~~ and in particular, re the latter of which we are speaking ~~ have a peculiar referent which is of peculiar offensiveness, and have for long carried definite implications as to the motivations of those using them re Israel ~ implications of which Jim is well aware. I am simply reminding him of the accusations he is purposefully, as it seems to me, inviting by his pertinacity in employing the term. I do not think he is really, consciously, antisemitic {any more than I know myself to be racist, howsomever much he may call on the term in a sort of aggressive self-defence}; but I reiterate that he is impolitic in the extreme to go on repeating this deliberate provocation and then hoping his motivations will not be denounced as such.

If one must find a figure of speech to define 'holocaust' here, I think hyperbole would do much better than euphemism. Think of the numerical scale of the Holocaust; remember the pictures of piles of corpses and hair and spectacles & children's shoes ~~ and one should be ashamed of letting a train of thought in the present discussion even letting one anywhere near such a usage.

~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:22 AM

Jim, re. Sabra and Shatila, your timeline has nothing to refute Israel's version of events, and your eye-witness did not witness any Israeli wrongdoing.
As I have said all along, it is disputed and I have still seen no evidence of Israel's guilt so I will keep an open mind.
(Unprejudiced!)

It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps.
Why no outrage about that Jim?
Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused?

Most or all of the "massacres" in your list involve demonstrators.
Arab security forces routinely fire on unarmed demonstrators (Hamas 12th Nov 2007, Egypt Lybia Syria this year) with no outrage ever expressed by you.
Is this not another example of your prejudice?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:42 AM

The term "Holocaust" is also used in the context of the slaughter of Armenians in 1915 - which seems to have been used as a precedent by Hitler, who in face of questions about "Final Solution" is quoted as saying "Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

I do not think that when people in Turkey have been imprisoned for referring to this episode as "the Armenian Holocaust" it would be reasonable to infer that this happened because the words were seen as "antisemitic".

When the word is deployed it is intended to have shock effect, as an accusation that some action is comparable to that of the Nazis. I think using it in this way is generally a mistake, since it invites the response that the actions in question are not on the same scale as that of Nazi Germany, and thus can even tend to trivialise their actual horror by the comparison. However I do not think that it is correct to see it as an expression of antisemitism - a true antisemite might indeed be expected to see a comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany as unacceptable, because it would involve saying something favourable about the Jewish government.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:36 AM

Oh dear - pay attention class!!!
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims (Jews?) have a culturally implanted tendency"" towards having sex with under-age girls
Your argument appears to indicate that there is evidence of Keith's statements Mike - can you confirm this to be the case?
Stop digging Keith - you claimed there have been no massacres carried out by Israel, then you said that nobody had made such a claim.
Stop lying.
Now, in the face of an account placed before you of the Shatila Sabra massacres, you continue to deny there to be any evidence -
Stop lying.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM

"Oh dear - pay attention class!!!" - Jim Carroll

Not to you dear boy - you are plainly delusional.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:42 AM

... and hysterical. I have not the remotest idea what the following, apparently addressed to me


---"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims (Jews?) have a culturally implanted tendency"" towards having sex with under-age girls
Your argument appears to indicate that there is evidence of Keith's statements Mike - can you confirm this to be the case?---

is supposed to mean; and I frankly don't believe you know either, Jim. Nor what it is supposed to have to do with the topic of this thread. Nor what you are calling on me to 'confirm'. Just more of your demagogic hysteria, is all I can make of it.

Over & out...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:56 PM

"It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps.
Why no outrage about that Jim?
Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused?"



All massacres deserve condemnation.

Some Mudcatters wish to justify and/or deny massacres committed by Israel.

Hence there is a discussion about those ones.

Keith is one of those catters that wish to let Israel of the hook for their massacres.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:37 PM

And, predictably, nobody felt inclined to make any response to my point about the Israelis cynically using the victim status conferred by that attempted genocide, to deflect any criticism of their oppressive behaviour.

For how long does historical victimhood grant the right to special consideration?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM

" I have not the remotest idea what the following, apparently addressed to me"
You are acting as stupid as Keith, (only he isn't acting) - that is the statement you claimed was not racist (course it wasn't when it was addressed to Muslims!!!)
Having shrieked hysterically that anyone (me in particular) is a "Jew Baiting Anti Semite" for seeing a resemblence in the ethnic cleansing by the Israeli Zionists and that of the Nazis - you now appear to be attempting to support your previous claim that while it is permissable to write off a whole ethnic culture as sexual perverts, it would only be racist to make exactly the same claim about Jews - making you a racist hypocrite "Over & out..." totally lacking the bottle even to respond to your own racism - over and out indeed.
A matched pair, (I was forgetting Terrytoon and BB) - a full house I think.
"Israelis cynically using the victim status conferred by that attempted genocide, to deflect any criticism of their oppressive behaviour."
Isn't this what it is all about Don?
"It is not disputed that a Muslim militia.....)"
Well, it is actually -
The Lebanese Phalanges (Arabic: ÍÒÈ ÇáßÊÇÆÈ ÇááÈäÇäíÉ, Hezb al-Kata'eb al-Loubnaniyya), better known in English as the Phalange (Arabic: Kata'eb), is a traditional right-wing Lebanese political party. Although it is officially secular, it is mainly supported by Maronite Christians.
It is you and you alone who has attempted to absolve the instigators, and almost certainly, the active participants of the massacre - the Israelis - from blame
You have persistantly stated that you "only wish to present the Israeli case" for these and all other massacres.
Nobody else here (apart from your trio of friends) has attempted to excuse or support any human rights abuses or war crimes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:36 PM

It is not disputed that a Muslim militia carried out a massacre later in those camps.
Why no outrage about that Jim?
Is it only a massacre if Jews can be accused?

From Wiki
On May 19, 1985, heavy fighting erupted between Amal and Palestinian camp militias for the control of the Sabra, Shatila and Burj el-Barajneh camps in Beirut. Amal was supported by the predominantly Shiite Sixth Brigade of the Lebanese Army commanded by Major-General Abd al-Halim Kanj [1] and even by some units of the predominantly Christian Eighth Brigade loyal to General Michel Aoun stationed in East Beirut. Virtually all the houses in the camps were reduced to rubble.

In Shatila, the Palestinians only retained the part of the camp centered around the mosque. Burj al-Barajneh remained under siege as Amal prevented supplies from entering or its population from leaving. The death toll remains uncertain, but is likely to have been high.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM

Keith,

Once again,


All massacres deserve condemnation.

Some Mudcatters wish to justify and/or deny massacres committed by Israel.

Hence there is a discussion about those ones.

You are one of those catters that wish to let Israel of the hook for their massacres.

Show me where anyone else sticks up for, justifies or denies any other massacres ....

Nobody - just you and your pals justifying or denying the Israeli ones.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 01:36 AM

Not true Lox.
Not in this or previous thread.
Both were started to discuss the membership application, a discussion I have tried to keep going.

Jim's only contribution has been to assert that the Jews of Israel are monsters.
First he said they mistreat the Bedouin.
I countered by providing evidence that they treated them rather well, and certainly much better than Egypt who Jim did not criticise.

Then he said they massacred refugees at Sabra and Shatila.
I countered that there was no evidence that they did any such thing, but proof that neighbouring Arabs carried out a worse massacre there without reproach from Jim.

He then said that they massacred civilians at Jenin.
BB and I informed him that no civilians had been killed there at all!
It was just a made up lie.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:11 AM

Jim,
Now, in the face of an account placed before you of the Shatila Sabra massacres, you continue to deny there to be any evidence

Thanks for the account Jim.
It does not implicate Israelis in the massacre.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:13 AM

Are you really trying to absolve the Israelis from the leading part they played in the Sabra/Shatia massacres by claiming - they did it as well.
Apart from yourself, everybody here is deploring the violence in the Middle East and arguing for a peaceful solution - you are claiming consistently that Israel is innocent of any human rights violations whatever
You have supported massacres of civilians as "self defence", chemical weapons used in built-up areas as "illuminations", described the role of the Israelis in two of the largest massacres to have taken place since WW2 as "failing to stop them from happening," the killing of what you claim to be "hostages" as "acceptable in wartime"....
You have downgraded humanitarian aid as "junk" and the killing of unarmed aid-bringers by highly trained and well armed troops as "self-defence" - as well as the bringing of that aid as "politically motivated".
You have failed to comment on the mass expulsion of the Bedouins, the criminal (though as yet untried) supervision of war crimes by an Israeli politician, the prevention of use of land vital to to livelihood of an already impoverished people by a Berlin-type wall, the frighteningly Nazi-like humiliation and persecution of ordinary Palestinians on a daily basis
And you say we are ignoring human rights abuses and supporting killing
Give us a break
JIM Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:31 AM

Are you really trying to absolve the Israelis from the leading part they played in the Sabra/Shatila massacres

No. I am saying there is no evidence that they did.
You have failed to produce anything despite weeks of asking.

you are claiming consistently that Israel is innocent of any human rights violations whatever

No. I am not.

You have failed to comment on the mass expulsion of the Bedouins,
I am not aware that they have been expelled from Israel.
I have commented on their (rather good) treatment in Israel.

There has been no discussion here of issues like the wall.
Are you thinking of starting a thread about them?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:26 AM

ven Mike, with his racist double standards, hs expressed his disquiet of the behaviour of the Zionists in Israel - you have not and until you do you will remin an apologist for war crimes and acts of inhumanity against non-combatants.
You have even realised that you overstepped the mark by claiming "no massacres at all", but instead of accepting that as a mistake and withdrawing it, which would have been th sensible thing to do, you first denied that it had ever been claimed, and then attempted to lie your way out of it - which makes you not only an apologist for war crimes and abuses against civilians, but a rather clumsy liar.
Even now you are attempting to describe the stated intention by the Israelis themselves to expel a whole ethnic group as "(rather good) treatment" - are you not worried by your own fanatical behaviour - I would be?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:27 AM

Confirming my last post.

Jim, your timeline provides evidence AGAINST Israeli complicity, but NO EVIDENCE FOR it.

Did you read it before posting it?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM

the stated intention by the Israelis themselves to expel a whole ethnic group

You have made that up Jim.
(Nice colours and fonts though)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:06 AM

Your support for human rights abuses goes far beyond anybody elses here - and Mike objected to my describing it as comparable with holocaust denial!!!
jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM

I have supported NO human rights abuse.
Not one.
None.
0.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:30 AM

I am sure you actually believe that to be true, Keith.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 10:47 AM

Put one up and shame me Kevin.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM

Seth Freedman, The Guardian.
"Imagine a London where a sword of Damocles hangs over every street and every building. A London where the day is punctuated by missiles raining down indiscriminately on schools, homes, parks and gardens. A London where the difference between crossing the road or not could be the difference between having your face ripped to shreds by shrapnel from incoming rockets falling from the sky.

For the last seven years, and especially in the wake of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, that has been the fate of Sderot, the beleaguered town on the edge of the Gazan-Israeli border."

Those people are suffering an abuse of their human rights OK.
How much worse an abuse can there be.
Jim supports that abuse of human rights, doesn't he Kevin?
Will you acknowledge that?
I support no such.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 12:58 PM

"a sordid little holocaust and ethnic cleansing supporter;"

were the actual words I took exception to, Jim ~~ or indeed, only one word thence, the 4th. You appeared to appreciate this fact at the time ~

Yet in a later post, you rendered this as

"Mike objected to my describing it as comparable with holocaust denial!!!"

which I didn't, because you didn't make any such comparison ~ or if you did, none that I noticed or responded to.

"ven Mike, with his racist double standards..."

you exclaim in a later post. I have none such, as you well know, for all your rhetoric.

I am in a state of constant puzzlement as to the identity of this non-existent entity, to whom you attribute my name but no views in any way resembling mine; and as to what point or points you are intending to make in doing so. This "Mike" you have created and keep invoking must be some other fellow entirely. He certainly shares none of my opinions, says nothing that I have ever said, and indeed bears no identifiable relationship to me whatsoever. He seems to be some avatar of your Aunt Sally that you have set up for the sole purpose of knocking down. Why you should have named him after me I cannot imagine.

I have tried to reply rationally to your irrationalities, but it has turned out to be nothing but pissing-in-the-wind so far as what I have written has penetrated your entrenched unsupportable assumptions as to what you think I might have meant ~ but didn't. You really are in a state of near-hysterical confusion, Jim; I should go & have a nice long lie-down if I were you, before you do yourself a mischief.