Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM

""Don.
my opinion that both sides bear blame for the events under discussion.

That is my opinion too Don.""

Based upon your previous posts to this thread, it is extremely difficult to give that statement the slightest credence.

Nowhere have you admitted to any single wrong action on the part of the Israelis, in fact the complete opposite.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 01:10 AM

Don, remember that on this and previous thread, every issue other than what the threads were supposed to be about, was raised by Jim Carroll.
So, when I responded, the Palestinian case had already been put far better than I could ever put it, and the Israeli case not at all.

Being the fair minded person you say you are, how could you possibly object to me redressing the balance, and why am I the only one criticised for being one sided?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 01:59 AM

Jim, most of those Palestinian deaths occurred during the Gaza incursion.
Israel only, reluctantly, embarked on that, having forced out all its settlers and withdrawn.
The incursion was solely in response the the Gazan missile offensive.
So who was to blame?

The heavy civilian casualties were only incurred because Hamas, illegally, placed military facilities in civilian areas and chose not to evacuate them.
So who was to blame?

Israel was careful to act within the law by issuing warnings and taking all possible steps to minimise civilian deaths.
(Don, I deplored their use of WP smoke in a civilian area and stated it could have been illegal.)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 03:44 AM

"The incursion was solely in response the the Gazan missile offensive."
The report says differently - do you have any evidence on this?
Te only "evidence" here is that you are six times more likely to be killed if you are Palestinian than if you are if you are Israeli - simple mathematics.
"it is extremely difficult to give that statement the slightest credence."
Being a fair-minded it is impossible to find anywhere on this thread one single example of your accepting wrongdoing on the part of the Israelis; massacres, armed incursions on built-up areas, attempts to starve into submission, ghettoisition, mass eviction to toxic rubbish-dumps, the use of deadly chemical weapons, the slaughter and endangerment of civilian "hostages", the killing of aid-workers, attributing the bringing of relief, daily persecution and humiliation of an entire population, the confiscation of taxes essential to maintaining essentials, the sezure and destruction of homes...... you have either actively defended and justified all of these, claimed they haven't happenned or have given them your nod of approval by your silence.
Now that's what I call being even-handed and fair!!!!!!!
"stated it could have been illegal"
No - the UN has stated that it could be illegal - you have described it as harmless
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:04 AM

The report says differently - do you have any evidence on this?
That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion.
What report are you talking about Jim?

Being a fair-minded person, it is impossible to find anywhere on this thread one single example of your accepting wrongdoing on the part of the Palestinians.

You initiated the debate with the Palestinian case, and only the Palestinian case, every time.
Obviously I will respond with the other side of the argument, because I am fair minded and unprejudiced.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:07 AM

No - the UN has stated that it could be illegal - you have described it as harmless

Are you denying that I have stated, many times, that it could have been illegal?

It is a LIE that I have EVER described it as harmless!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:13 AM

"That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion."
The American report above (which again - you appear not to have read when it is put out for you) points out that it is not as simple as that.
You have argued the right of the Israelis to defend themselves - but not the Palastinians apparently
The Israelis are the aggressors - the statistics alone show that, and the atrocities - which you have denied, and continue to do so.
You are attempting to clain that peace would be arrived at if the Palestinians ceased their resistance - "throw down your peashooters and come out with your hands up!"
What would prevent the Israelis from shifting them all to the nearest toxic rubbish dump as they have the Bedouin families? - oh, I forgot - you claim that haven't done that either, didn't you - leftie propaganda wasn't it?
"It is a LIE that I have EVER described it as harmless! "
You and Terrapin have consistantly argued it to be non-chemical and smoke producing - , show me one occasion that you have acknowledged the horrific injuries it can and has caused to humen beings - including children and hospital patients.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM

Jim, IT WAS the stated reason for the incursion.


show me one occasion that you have acknowledged the horrific injuries it can and has caused to humen beings
Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:21 AM
.
.

I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal.
Don pointed out that a direct hit, or a few feet away, will cause serious injuries.
Conventional munitions are effective over a much greater range.
WP smoke would not be deployed to cause casualties because it would cause vastly less casualties than conventional weapons.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:09 AM

From Wiki.
Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire into Israel[40] and arms import into the Gaza strip.[

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:40 AM

"It was stated.........."
THEY ARE THE PERSISTANT AGGRESSORS, ABUSERS, WAR CRIMINALS - DESPITE YOUR CONTINUING TO IGNORE THAT FACT
WHY SHOULD THEY BE BELIEVED - WOULD YOU SURRENDER TO SUCH PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF A WIKI ENTRY
You continue to claim non-bias (and accuse us of same) while unconditionally supporting only one side
Israel HAS USED WP ON CIVILIANS - THIS IS NOT AN ACCADEMIC ARGUMENT -IT IS A DONE DEAL (WITH HORRIFIC PHOTOGRAPHS TO PROVE IT) - STOP PLAYING THAT FACT DOWN - THIS IS A NASTY BUNCH YOU ARE SUPPORTING - AND SUGGESTING THE PALESTINIANS SURRENDER TO.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:48 AM

You continue to claim non-bias while unconditionally supporting only one side.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:12 AM

"You continue to claim non-bias while unconditionally supporting only one side. "
Isn't that exactly what you are not only doing - but what you have said you are doing "only putting the Israeli side" unquote
You agreed with Don that the blame lies on both sides - what exactly do you accept that the Israelis have done - (apart from their sin of ommission by "failing to prevent" the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 - which they facilitated in the first place
Your arguments becomes surreal
JIM Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:35 AM

Jim,

"the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 -"

Nice to see that you group Rwandans, Cambodians, and Croations with Jews as not worthy of your concern, and not to be considered as human beings.


Of course, to expect you to bother with the truth has been shown to be a pointless task.



Still waiting for you toa address the questions, instead of telling lies.



"The rest of your questions have been long answered - (eye-for-an-eye - remember) - maybe you have the same type of dislexia that Keith has been suffering from for so long."

As usual, you answer with an outright lie...


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.



BTW

IF you think my facts are made up, try arguing about THEM instead of attacking me- You might even get some agreement with your views, IF YOU PRESENT FACTS with support instead of the rumors and lies you have been posting

"you are the one who suggested that they have no right to their homeland."

No I stated that they have no right to the Jewish Homeland, and DO have the right to the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan.

YOU have stated that Jews have no right to the Jewish Homeland, repeatedly, and NO right to any of the lands Jews were driven from in 1948.







",No it isn't you Zionist little shit.
...
Now go and learn some simple manners
Best wishes,
Jim Carroll"


seems to sum up your entire argument. Hardly a valid discussion of the merits of any arguement.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:38 AM

"That was Israel's stated reason for the incursion."

So what? I cannot envisage that Keith would regard "That was Hamas's stated reason for..." as in itself having much evidential status.

The question isn't whether something has been stated to be true by either side, but rather whether it is in fact true.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:42 AM

"a Maronite group, also called Lebanese Forces militia group, entered the camp and murdered inhabitants during the night. The exact number of victims is disputed, from 700–800 to 3,500 (depending on the source)."

"The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11[nb 1]) were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., area on September 11, 2001. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets. The hijackers intentionally crashed two planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth jet, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to take control before it could reach the hijacker's intended target in Washington, D.C. Nearly 3,000 died in the attacks."


Glad to see that US Citizens are also less than human by YOUR standards.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM

On September 15, King Hussein declared martial law. The next day, Jordanian tanks (the 60th Armored Brigade of the Jordanian Army) attacked the headquarters of Palestinian organizations in Amman; the army also attacked camps in Irbid, Salt, Sweileh, Baq'aa, Wehdat and Zarqa. Then the head of Pakistani training mission to Jordan, Brigadier Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (later Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan), took command of the 2nd division.[13][14] However, the Jordanians could not devote all their attention to the Palestinians. The 3rd Armoured Division of the Iraqi Army had remained in Jordan after the 1967 war. The Iraqi regime sympathised with the Palestinians, and it was unclear whether the division would intervene on the part of the Palestinians. Thus the 99th Brigade of the Jordanian 3rd Armoured Division had to be retained to watch the Iraqi division.[15]
Arafat later claimed that the Jordanian army killed between 10,000 and 25,000 Palestinians, although more conservative estimates put the number between 1000 and 2000.[16][17]

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:57 AM

Kevin McGrath,
Israel warned they would take action if the missiles did not stop.
They then took action, because the miisiles did not stop or even decrease, stating that they were doing it to stop the missiles.

All their actions were consistent with that being the aim.

If another motive is being suggested, let's have it up for discussion with whatever evidence you have.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:02 AM

You could start with Jim's "report."
You must know what it is.
You do read his posts, don't you?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:04 AM

Casualties
See also: Palestinian casualties of war
Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by Jordan at 3,400, while Palestinian sources often cite the number 5,000, mainly civilians, killed. Arafat at some point claimed that 10,000 had been killed.[21][22] The Western reporters were concentrated at the Intercontinental Hotel, away from the action.[citation needed] Nasser's state-controlled Voice of the Arabs from Cairo reported genocide.
[edit]


But, Since ONLY killing by Jews matters, Jim considers this type of thing to be OK.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:14 AM

There had been sporadic rockets from the Gaza strip form mnay years, and Israel,had consistently responded. (Or as the Paleswtians would see it, the other way round, with the rockets being seen as a response to Israeli actions) But the "response" was relatively, very different from the ferocious attack in December and January.

One factor that has been suggested is that there was an Israeli election due in February.

All government statements in all circumstances should be viewed with suspicion.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM

And by "all governments" I mean all, everywhere.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 10:09 AM

The significance of the election is that the government would be judged on how it dealt with the missile attacks.
The aim would still be the stated one of stopping the missiles.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 12:00 PM

confirming my posts

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM

"THIS IS A NASTY BUNCH YOU ARE SUPPORTING - AND SUGGESTING THE PALESTINIANS SURRENDER TO." - Jim Carroll

Who is suggesting that the Palestinians surrender to anyone? Another idiotic, hysterical rant from Jim lad.

What the Palestinians want to do is to try a period of not attacking and killing their neighbours to find out what sort of result they get.

Oh by the bye on the subject of White Phosphorus here is the Convention on Chemical Weapons please show me where White Phosphorus is listed as being prohibited. Please show me where within this convention White Phosphorus is even mentioned.

Chemical Weapons Convention

Where White Phosphorus Munitions are mentioned:

Conventional Weapons Protocol III - Incendiary Weapons

The important bit extracted from the above:

"Protocol III lists certain munition types like smoke shells which, even if they contain White Phosphorus, only have a secondary incendiary effect; these munition types are not considered to be incendiary weapons."

Please provide details of IDF white phosphorus munitions used - (Only kidding I know that you won't do anything of the sort - they used the M825A1 which contains 116 felt wedges impregnated with white phosphorus which, once dispersed by a high-explosive charge, start to burn within four to five seconds. They then burn for five to ten minutes. The smoke screen produced is extremely effective, it is NOT classified as an incediary weapon - NO OTHER WEAPONS CONTAINING WHITE PHOSPHORUS WERE USED).

MGOH - over 8000 missiles, rockets and mortar bombs fired from Gaza into Israel since the IDF cleared all Israeli citizens from Gaza. There have been recorded instances of some of these munitions being filled with White Phosphorus (September 2010; March 2011 & August 2011) - Note filled with white phosphorus not impregnated felt wedges - these ARE INCENDIARY WEAPONS usage of which against civilian targets is illegal.

Now then Kevin you tell me how many missiles, rockets or mortar bombs would you expect the UK Government to accept landing in our green and pleasant land before retailiating? I sincerely hope it would nothing like 8000.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 02:14 PM

I see BB is back with his eye-for-an-eye philosophy
None of the incidents listed can be laid at the door of the ordinary Palestinian people - who are the main victims of Israeli aggression - what's your point - that they Palestinians hijackes a few planes and flew them to NY - or - more likely - they are al A-rabs and so deservng of indiscriminate revenge?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 02:29 PM

Jim,

The point is that YOUR comment ""the biggest massacre of civilians since WW2 -"" is an outright lie and that your presenting it proves you have no interest in the truth.



You have made claims that are proven false by facts, and then tell others their claims are false ( after being provided facts) because the person presenting them are just are "Zionist little shit"(s).



I think we can safely determine just what kind off a bigot YOU are from your comments.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 03:17 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:37 PM

Jim, your own expert, cut and pasted by you, confirmed the type of smoke rounds used.

Even you can not argue with international convention.
Not chemical weapons.
Not incendiary weapons.
Not any kind of weapon at all!

All this has been explained to you many times, but your case is so weak you have to cling on to every lie, and just keep repeating it as if that will ever make it true.

It is a lie to claim that IDF ever, EVER, used chemical weapons.
If your argument requires you to make a liar of yourself, what is it worth Jim?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:56 PM

Plain and simple truth is that Jim Carroll is not interested in the truth, he is not interested in any fact, no matter how well substantiated. His bias and his bigotry are his guiding lights, for his over stated, hysterical over dramatical rants. He even dismisses and ignores the passages from his massive "cut'n'pastes" that show that his assertions are wrong.

Nothing he says is of any interest or import, best left ignored.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:22 AM

Bruce
At the time of the Sabra, Shatila it was the largerst massacre of civilians since WW2 - I believe 9/11 happened - when????
I asked what you think should happen to the Palestinians - I received no reply, so looking back - I think this is one of yours;
"The Palestinians were never owners of the Jewish Homeland"; one of your fellow Zionists even went so far as to propose a name for the new home for the people you propose be driven out; "Arabania" wasn't it?
Again you choose to cringe behind "If you criticise us you must be anti-Semite"
There is no greater manifestation of racisism or bigotry than to move whole peoples about like so many cattle, to divide the world into hostile groups of believer and non-believer, black and white, Christian and heathen, Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile.... or talk about "Chosen People" or "Promised Lands".
In the absence of an answer to my question, I'll just have to supply my own - if all else fails, move them next to a toxic rubbish dump - as is happening to the Bedouins - "rather good treatment" don't you think?
Nice to have you back Terrabyte - I've missed the jackbooted rant.
Keith;
I asked "what exactly do you accept that the Israelis have done" - I recieved no reply; fair enough, it was a rhetorical question.
We are all aware of your unconditional support for the massacres, the evictions, the blockade, the murder of aid workers....
And still you downgrade the chemicals used on civilians and ignore the horrific injuries - par for the course really.
At least that clears up the question of bias and even-handedness on this thread, if nothing else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:51 AM

I do not "downgrade" anything.
I am guided by the classification agreed on by the world's expert authorities on these munitions.
But, Jim Carroll disagrees with them.
Such deranged hubris!
Why should we listen or take you seriously Jim?


We are all aware of your unconditional support for the terror missiles of Gaza, bombing of bus loads of school kids, ....

At least that clears up the question of bias and even-handedness on this thread, if nothing else.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:02 AM

"But, Jim Carroll disagrees with them."
No - they are marginally accepted as chemical by many "experts - that word again - surely your favourite hiding place) my concern rests entirely with the use they are made on human beings by other (less than) human beings, and the effect that it has on them - not apparently an issue with you.
And your criticism of Israel is..............?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:09 AM

No - they are marginally accepted as chemical by many "experts
I dispute that Jim, and I do not think you can possibly justify that claim.

If you were just concerned about usage we could have agreed, but you needed to demonize Israel by falsely and dishonestly claiming that they used "chemical weapons".
A lie.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 06:33 AM

Pick your "expert
Jim Carroll

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119
http://www.vtjp.org/background/gazaweapons.php
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/10/uk-palestinians-israel-phosphorus-factbo-idUKTRE50922H20090110
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1124770688802666702#
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/white-phosphorus-terror-weapon.html
http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/DOD/south_lebanon_white_phosphorus/index.htm
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/israel-launches/
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm
http://www.rense.com/general72/PHOS.HTM
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5596102
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/01/10/q-israel-s-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM

BTW
"If you were just concerned about usage we could have agreed,"
As you still havn'e accepted one single piece of wrongdoing on the part of the Israelis, despite your agreement that "blame lies on both sides" we certainly could not have agreed about anything
And your criticism of Israel is..............?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:21 AM

Try READING posts, Jim...



Casualties
See also: Palestinian casualties of war
Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by Jordan at 3,400, while

Palestinian sources often cite the number 5,000, mainly civilians, killed.

Arafat at some point claimed that 10,000 had been killed.[21][22] The Western reporters were concentrated at the Intercontinental Hotel, away from the action.[citation needed] Nasser's state-controlled Voice of the Arabs from Cairo reported genocide.
[edit]

This refers to the killing of Palestinians by Jordanians.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:23 AM

Jim,

"by other (less than) human beings,"???

Are you sure you want to say this? It does NOT make you look like a decent human being.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:44 AM

Black September, The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan in 1970


The Sabra and Shatila massacre took place in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war. Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese Phalangists while the camp was surrounded by the Israel Defense Force.


A few of us might just suspect that 1970 was before 1982...




A pity you can't even bother to learn ANY of the history of the Palestinian People.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM

"At the time of the Sabra, Shatila it was the largerst massacre of civilians since WW2 "


And Cambodia?-

500- 3500 dead is not even a blip on the radar when it comes to massacres, yet you make a provably false statement. I presume this is because you have no valid points to bring up, yet need to make some reply to pretend you care about people that you can't bother to learn the history ( as defined BY THEMSELVES) of.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 07:55 AM

I picked 2 at random.
Amnesty did not work.
Reuters had only this hit for the word "chemical"
"White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon under international conventions"

I have criticised Israel's use of smoke, and its blockade of Gaza.

You still have not accepted one single piece of wrongdoing on the part of the Palestinians.
And your criticism of Palestinians is..............?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:10 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 10:09 AM

OK let me clear it up now.
I do not support the blockade.
I think it right for activists to challenge it.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:44 AM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:46 AM

....
You can argue that the (Israeli) response (to missile onslaught) was disproportionate, and I might agree,

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM

"Are you sure you want to say this? It does NOT make you look like a decent human being."
People who use chemical weapons on civilians demean the term "human"
How would you describe them?
Keith thinks it so bad that he apears not to want to venture beyond 2 references - and who's to blame him considering the stance he has taken about the slaughter of civilians
And before you attempt to make this a piece of anti-semitism - it refers to the behaviour of these people, not their race or religion
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 Cambodia?-"
Khymer Rouge period - (1975–1979)" - Sabra Shatila 1982
From Le Monde on Sabra Shatila
"Even the numbers of dead and disappeared remain vague. Estimates range from 500 to 5,000."
"I do not support the blockade."
The Blockade - that's it - massacres, civilian slaughter..... et al, and you reserve your disapproval for opposiition to what you have described as "politically motivated unwanted rubbish" - well done Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 08:58 AM

1958-1961

"During the Great Leap Forward between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Tibetans died,[49]"

The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dà yuè jìn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China (CPC), reflected in planning decisions from 1958 to 1961,



1975 - 1978

The Khmer Rouge reached Phnom Penh and took power in 1975. The regime, led by Pol Pot, changed the official name of the country to Democratic Kampuchea. They immediately evacuated the cities and sent the entire population on forced marches to rural work projects. They attempted to rebuild the country's agriculture on the model of the 11th century, discarded Western medicine, and destroyed temples, libraries, and anything considered Western. At least a million Cambodians, out of a total population of 8 million, died from executions, overwork, starvation and disease.[34]
Estimates as to how many people were killed by the Khmer Rouge regime range from approximately one to three million; the most commonly cited figure is two million (about one-third of the population).[35][36] This era gave rise to the term Killing Fields, and the prison Tuol Sleng became notorious for its history of mass killing. Hundreds of thousands fled across the border into neighbouring Thailand. The regime disproportionately targeted ethnic minority groups. The Cham Muslims suffered serious purges with as much as half of their population exterminated.[37]


1994

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6) through mid-July, over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate.[1] Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000,[2] or as much as 20% of the country's total population.

1995

The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosnian Muslims, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić.[2][3]


2003- 2010

The Darfur Conflict[14][15] was a guerrilla conflict or civil war centered on the Darfur region of Sudan. It began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) groups in Darfur took up arms, accusing the Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arab Sudanese in favor of Sudanese Arabs.
...There are various estimates on the number of human casualties, ranging from under twenty thousand to several hundred thousand dead, from either direct combat or starvation and disease inflicted by the conflict. There have also been mass displacements and coercive migrations, forcing millions into refugee camps or over the border and creating a large humanitarian crisis and is regarded by many as a genocide.




A list of 20th century accused genocides... Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon IS listed, but by no stretch of any imagination could be called the worst, except by a bigot.


"The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 against Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Lebanese Maronite Christian/Phalange militias, near the beginning of the 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict. The number of victims of the massacre is estimated at 700-3500. Responsibility for the massacre has been attributed to the Phalangists as the perpetrators, and indirectly to Israel as the ally of the Phalangists.[260]
On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.[261] Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.[262][263]
According to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland,[264] "the term genocide (...) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision".[263] This opinion is a reflection of the comments made by some of the delegates who took part in the debate. While all acknowledged that it was a massacre, the claim that it was a genocide was disputed, for example the delegate for Canada stated "[t]he term genocide cannot, in our view, be applied to this particular inhuman act".[263] The delegate of Singapore added that "[his] delegation regret[ted] the use of the term "an act of genocide" (...) [as] the term 'genocide' is used to mean acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[263] and that "[he] also question[ned] whether the General Assembly ha[d] the competence to make such determination",[263] and the United States commented that "[w]hile the criminality of the massacre was beyond question, it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label this tragedy genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention (...)".[263]
Citing Sabra and Shatila as an example, Leo Kuper notes the reluctance of the United Nations to respond or take action in actual cases of genocide against the most egregious violators, but its willingness to charge "certain vilified states, and notably Israel", with genocide. In his view:
This availability of a scapegoat state in the UN restores members with a record of murderous violence against their subjects a self-righteous sense of moral purpose as principled members of 'the community of nations'... Estimates of the numbers killed in the Sabra-Shatila massacres range from about four hundred to eight hundred - a minor catastrophe in the contemporary statistics of mass murder. Yet a carefully planned UN campaign found Israel guilty of genocide, without reference to the role of the Phalangists in perpetrating the massacres on their own initiative. The procedures were unique in the annals of the United Nations.[265]"

2.3 1915 to 1950
2.3.1 Ottoman Empire/Turkey
2.3.1.1 Armenian
2.3.1.2 Assyrian
2.3.1.3 Greek
2.3.1.4 Dersim Kurds
2.3.2 Soviet Union
2.3.2.1 Katyn Massacres
2.3.2.2 Decossackisation
2.3.2.3 Holodomor
2.3.2.4 Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian and Baltic Sea peoples
2.3.3 Croatia
2.3.4 Dominican Republic
2.3.5 Nazi Germany and occupied Europe
2.3.6 Partition of India in 1947
2.3.7 Republic of China and Tibet
2.4 1951 to 2000
2.4.1 Expulsion of Germans after World War II
2.4.2 Australia 1900-1969
2.4.3 Zanzibar
2.4.4 Guatemala 1968-1996
2.4.5 Pakistan (Bangladesh War of 1971)
2.4.6 Burundi 1972 and 1993
2.4.7 Rwanda 1994
2.4.8 North Korea
2.4.9 Equatorial Guinea
2.4.10 Cambodia
2.4.11 East Timor under Indonesian occupation
2.4.12 Dirty War in Argentina
2.4.13 Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon
2.4.14 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
2.4.15 US invasion of Vietnam
2.4.16 Ethiopia
2.4.17 Iraqi Kurds
2.4.18 India
2.4.19 Tibet
2.4.20 Brazil
2.4.21 Democratic Republic of Congo
2.4.22 Somalia

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:00 AM

"And Cambodia?-"
Khymer Rouge period - (1975–1979)" - Sabra Shatila 1982

So you even admit that 1979 was BEFORE 1982??????

NOW we ARE getting somewhere!

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:03 AM

"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: 29 Nov 11 - 09:31 AM

Jim, you asked what criticism of Israel I had ever made, and I gave you three straight off.
I asked for what criticism you had ever made of Palestinian murdering.
Nothing.
Don and me, being fair minded and unprejudiced, acknowledge that fault lies on both sides.
You just lie on both sides.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 12:50 PM

""(Don, I deplored their use of WP smoke in a civilian area and stated it could have been illegal.)""

Could have been doesn't cut it if you are claiming to be fair minded, and I don't think those burn victims in the hospital they targetted would agree that it was "smoke".

You swallow whole all the "reasons" given for the destruction visited upon civilian homes, and who is your "credible" source for those assertions?

The IDF!! Well that makes it all so certain because they wouldn't lie.........would they?

Which still leaves us with everybody else deploring the violence on both sides and you claiming that the kind and gentle Israeli forces are the victims, defending themselves against Palestinian aggression (with overwhelming violence against a third world country still denied recognition as a state by Israeli and US influence through veto at the UN).

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:18 PM

"The Great Leap Forward
You seem to be attempting to excuse the Sabra - Shatila massacres by bean counting - squalid that you are
S and S were a single planned and exectuted massacre over three days facilitated by and participated in by the Israelis
As far as I can see all the others are a series of killings carried out over a length of time - in some cases years, none, as far as I can see can be described as "a massacre", rather, a sequence of killings, including some massacres.
The claim (not mine) was that S & S was the largest single massacre to have taken place since W.W.2
If it's any help, you might like to dispute the figures by not counting the bodies buried (by the Falangists and the Israelis, with the help of the latter's bulldozers) under what is now the Stadium, because we will never know how many there where without tearing down the construction) - hope that's of some help.
What kind of people are you??
Keith - my stance on the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression has been put up on this and other threads; if you can't manage it yourself, perhaps you might get a friend to read it for you.
Your response is a joke - the punch-line being your opposition to a blockade you have sneered at from the beginning.
I wonder how happy Don is having you claim him as an ally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:26 PM

"The claim (not mine) was that S & S was the largest single massacre to have taken place since W.W.2"

Whose, then, so we know whose lies YOU accept without thought?


"You seem to be attempting to excuse the Sabra - Shatila massacres by bean counting - squalid that you are"

No, I seem to be pointing out your comment is false and a lie.

As for "squalid", an admitted racist who has called Palestinians "sub-human" such as yourself has no room to talk, IMO.