BS: Homs horror (Syria, 2012)

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 02:35 PM

You have now PMd me to say that you never made such a statement - been there, done that
Ditto to terrytoon
Britain sold Syria (according to you and Keith) sniper bullets - are you now claiming these were illumination flares or weedkiller perhaps?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 03:54 PM

I have told you many times now that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that sniper rounds were ever requested, licenced or supplied.
Why do you make such a twat of yourself be reiterating it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:16 AM

There is no reason, that I am aware of, to believe they were sniper bullets.
If you have any evidence, show us.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM

"I have told you many times now that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that sniper rounds were ever requested, licenced or supplied" But you and Dirty Mac Danny said they were sniper rounds - care to give us another version of what they were - pop-gun corks maybe.
I remind you, after having presented them as being merely sniper rounds, you changed your mind when it was pointed out to the carnage that snipers were causing in Homs - a brief reminder http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-28/middleeast/world_meast_syria-homs-scene_1_snipers-syrian-city-arab-league?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST
Your change of heart leaves one to suspect that it is not unconnected with your magnificent foot-in-mouth in attempting to pass of sniper rounds and relatively unimportant, just as Dirty Mac Danny's wavering has something to do with his "only £30,000 worth" - making your present protestations a little suspect, don't you agree?
If you are going to continue this farce perhaps you might indicate which particular explanation you are now accepting - that Britain sold nothing to Syria, that they sold small arms amunition and they were harmless because (they wouldn't fit their weapons, they weren't lethal enough to worry about), that they didn't sell them enough to do any damge, that it was so long ago that it didn't matter, that they were licenced but never delivered - then back to, they Britain didn't sell anything to Syria - you've used them all at one time or another.
Don't you think this would make a wonderful children't game, sort of like 'The Bog Down in the Valley-o'
If you have any evidence (look it up in the dictionary if you're not sure what "evidence" means) that the licences were recinded or any othr reason that the (documented) order was not fulfilled, please supply the reference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:25 PM

We have both told you endlessly that no sniper rounds were supplied.
You say they were, but site us as evidence for it!
Madness.
Do you have any evidence for sniper rounds, because no-one else has.
If you have lets have it Jim.
Now please.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:25 PM

Cross posted - would welcome an explanation.
I have no reason whatever to produce any more evidence than I alerady have - that the order was registered and licenced (a war crime enough in itself IMO, considering the horrific torture/murder/imprisonment record of the Syrian regime)
As far as the fulfilment of that order, it is entirely up to you to prove that it wasn't delivered
Waiting Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:30 PM

Waiting for what Jim?
I have no idea what you are claiming/not claiming now.
I suggest you stop drinking, go to bed, and start again tomorrow when you are rational again.
(Again?)

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 04:32 PM

A further reminder
"That would be for the sniper rifles Jim."
and
"Guess what "Jim Lad" - Snipers have to practice - they do rather a lot of it."
Have a nice evening - music calls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 03:44 AM

My post is a weeks old mistake.
I thought we were talking about Libya. You brought in so many countries such a confusion is understandable.
I corrected it at the time, and again every time you cited it as evidence.
Britain did not supply rifles to Syria.
Britain did not supply ammunition for the non-existent rifles.


What Teribus said is true, but does not mean Britain supplied sniper rounds to anyone does it Jim?

There is no evidence for British sniper rounds.
You have been citing us as evidence in the knowledge that we deny it.
You have no other evidence.
Why do you keep on?

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM

Beyond mentioning and quoting a newspaper article you have produced no "evidence" whatsoever.

Do you faithfully believe everything you read in the Daily Mail Christmas - or just the bits you can use to feed your bias and bigotry?

Please quote where I have stated they were "sniper bullets/sniper rounds" - I think I can go back through my posts to this thread and find that I stated the exact opposite - i.e. stating that the 7.62 x 51mm is standard NATO ammunition that can be fired by the Steyr, but the Russian 7.62 x 54mm is a round specifically loaded for use in their sniper rifles.

Your contention was that British supplied weapons were slaughtering civilians in Homs - The inference you were hoping to get across was that the British Government had supplied weapons that the Assad regime was using on its own people and that the British Government were fully aware of this.

After digging around it has been shown quite conclusively that:

1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria
2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules
3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article
4: It was pointed out that the only type of ammunition that Syria could use fitted one type of rifle and the sale (If it ever took place) was for a tiny amount of ammunition and it pre-dated the Arab Spring type demonstrations in Syria by two years.

So all in all Christmas your deliberate falsehood was examined and found wanting on just about every level going. Rather than admitting to making a mistake, an act which appears to be beyond your integrity, and clarifying your position, you dug your heels in attempted to defend the impossible (in which exercise you failed) and started throwing insults about and then complained when they were hurled back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:55 AM

"Never apologise: never explain" would appear to be Carroll's watchword ~~ see my exchange with him 17 Mar, 0544am - 0120pm.

As I said above, quoting Jane Austen, there are those who 'do not deserve the compliment of rational opposition'. 17 mar 0806am.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:57 AM

"I thought we were talking about Libya"
Oh come onnnnn - not another version - haven't you got a friend that could help you out here
You are lying again Keith and this one has taken you weeks to come up with.
Please go away before you disgrace yourself further.
"Do you faithfully believe everything you read in the Daily Mail Christmas "
Now you're rejecting the contents of your own right wing rag - not right enough for you I suppose - maybe something for you in the BP press.
The sale was included in an official list produced by the Guardian and put up here (forged, I suppose)
If you have any evidence whatever that the sale was revoked, please let's have a look at it - you have ignored all requests to do so so far.
And your acceptance of sniper bullets - plain enough when you claimed that they were "only" used for practice "they do rather a lot of it"
Any "information" you put up her should be accompanied by the appropriate evidence as, like Keith, you lie.
Anything to say to my mother before you go? No - she will be disappointed.
I'd stick to your fantasies, your drinking/shooting mates and your penis substitute if I were you
Have a nice one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 05:01 AM

"Never apologise: never explain" would appear to be Carroll's watchword"
As you have apologised for your pathetic "Jew Baiting" accusation and answered the questions you have been asked here
I honestly believe you would have a few months ago
You appear to have found your level in your present company - one dinner party you didn't take a long enough spoon to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 05:16 AM

Mike
These clowns, with their ham-fisted lying, their support for slaughter and their blustering emptiness make me sick - you just make me sad.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 05:23 AM

You are lying again Keith and this one has taken you weeks to come up with.

Do you really believe I have secret knowledge of ammunition sales not available to anyone else?
REALLY?
I have no evidence of sniper rounds being sold to anyone.
To call me a liar for stating that obvious FACT is laughable.
YOU are laughable.
This thread has exposed you as a fool.
A Hard Left, uncaring, lying fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 05:33 AM

Sorry to have saddened you, Jim. Honestly not my intention. I just do genuinely believe that you have misread &/or mis- or overinterpreted various things that have been said; and have now mulishly dug in your heels and refused even to consider whether this might indeed be the case: which makes me sad in my turn.

I have on wish to quarrel with you. Although we have never actually met, we have many shared acquaintance and recollections over the early Revival days, and as you know I much respect the work you did with Ewan & Peggy & the Critics, and get the impression that you have some respect for my critical response. We should be able to find some mutual tolerance over basic political differences ~ that is what living in a democracy means, surely? and I think it wrong to be 'saddened' by someone having different opinions.

I really regret the fact that we have fallen out over this matter. But I cannot honestly purport to agree with you when I truly think that you have got it wrong on this occasion.

Best wishes anyhow
~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 06:43 AM

"But I cannot honestly purport to agree with you when I truly think that you have got it wrong on this occasion."
Sorry Mike - stay with the company you seem to have chosen and you become indistinguishable from them eventually.
Keith is a lying idiot with racist overtones, the gunman is a foul-mouthed thug - you always struck me better than that.
You might have tried answering the question I asked about Keith's attempts at censorship, but it seems to have gone further than that now.
If I have misinterpreted what you have said, please point it out; you didn't respond to my final summing up of what I believe to be your double standards.
I have attempted to answer every single point on this thread; I evaded nothing, I distorted nothing, I don't fake my cut-n-pastes and I don't change my course on what my opinion is every five minutes to suit the fact that I have been caught out in a lie.
Whatever my politics are, my argument on these threads have been purely a humanitarian approach and none of you have been able to point out anything different.
My personal philosophy did not merit the witch hunt.
I suggest you read through Keith and Terminus's threads and ask whether that is really where you believe yourself to be.
Personally, I'd rather remember you when I enjoyed what you had to say and the way you said it, even if I didn't agree with you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 07:09 AM

"you didn't respond to my final summing up of what I believe to be your double standards."
.,,.
Not sure which particular post you ref here, Jim. Could you give a date-time identifier, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 07:20 AM

Mike
17 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM
Off to try and cut the grass (last cut in September thanks to Irish weather)
Not deliberately avoiding any responses to care to make
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 08:27 AM

Not very clearly specified at that post, Jim. You appear simply to have refd me back to something on a v old thread. As I see it, you accused me of being selective in my anti-racism ~ of only being anti-racist when Jews are concerned. I refuted that accusation, pointing out the posts I had contributed objecting to Israeli policies; and reiterating that I was opposed to all racism, but that this did not blind me to the faults of certain demographics, such as sexually exploitative young Paksitanis, or oppressive mid-eastern regimes with loathsome criminal codes like Saudi [& I might have added, going back in history a bit, that of Idi Amin]. My point was that objecting to the activities of such is not racist merely because they belong to a different ethnicity from my own; and it seemed to me that this latter fact tends to blind you to their malpractices, and lead you to accuse those of us who are trying to express objections to such attitudes and activities on their part of racism, simply because of their ethnicity. It is my opinion that it is you who have provided no satisfactory response to this point - although you did, oddly, express some support on a thread I once OP'd on Accusations of Racism being used as a Shield against Criticism. I can otoh find no point you have made against me, or any question you have put to me, to which I have failed to furnish a reasoned response.

Ball in your court.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 08:42 AM

Sorry Mike
Going round in circles - one more try and I'm gone.
Keith appealed to you following his 'All male Pakistanis' statement.
You said you saw nothing racist in what he said
I asked whether you would consider a similar statement made about Jews (gave example)
You said you would find it racist.
Can't be bothered wading though Keith's stomach-heaving marathon again and can't be more specific than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 10:33 AM

Point I made then, and make again now, is that "Pakistani" does not = "Muslim"; there is a separate culture among Pakistani male youths. Had he made the statement about all Muslims, or even all Pakistanis [I took it as implied by the context that it was only that youth segment subscribing to those particular social influences which were the subject of the ongoing discussion who were being ref'd], then of course I should have considered it racist. If the statement, therefore, had been made about all Jews, or all Martians of bug-eyed monsters or whatever, then, as I said...

That surely can't be interpreted that I can only see racism where Jews are at the end of it ... can't really see by what anfractuous ways you could have come to that conclusion.

Cross-purposes somewhere, I suspect.

Still, I take your point, and accept my statement [& his] were expressed with insufficient clarity such as to lay open to misinterpretation. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Now, coming back to this thread...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 12:45 PM

Bit convoluted for me.
I think you are agreeing that claiming "All male Pakistanis have a cultural implant" which makes them predisposed to having sex with underage girls is racist? - do I have that right?
If so, I will check where I misunderstood you and will apologise if I have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 12:53 PM

Jim,
my argument on these threads have been purely a humanitarian approach and none of you have been able to point out anything different.
Your argument on this thread has NOT been purely humanitarian.
Indeed, you contemptuously dismissed expressions of humanity as "hand-wringing sympathy."
I have been moved to comment on your LACK of humanity on occasions.

Your argument on this thread has been purely to implicate Britain and to deflect blame from Russia and China.
You did dwell on the sufferings of sniper victims, but only because you thought you could frame Britain for complicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 02:10 PM

"expressions of humanity"
Your "expressions of humanity" have been little more than a charade, summed up perfectly by your proposal to arm Assad with the equipment to suppress demonstrations
The Syrian people have pointed out that they don't need sympathy, but practical support, yet you have opposed any suggestion of such and have failed to come up with one single suggestion of your own.
You have backed wholeheartedly the British Government's decision to take no practical steps to assist the Syrians because of their suspicion of what might follow Assad's regime
You have consistently attempted to suppress any discussion on Britain's role in providing equipment and weapons to the Arab Spring States to the extent of denying the existence of an order for (identified by you) sniper bullets).
You have not commented once on Britain's continuing arms sales to despotic States a month after the protests started
Don't you dare suggest that I lack humanity when your display here has been an utter cynical disgrace.
Your performance here has been appalling and so crassly executed as to be easily recognised as such.
Excuse me if I don't join you in your usual display of crocodile tears
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 03:01 PM

Jim: Whether or not we agree as to the interpretation to be put on the intended referent of the "male Pakistanis" statement, which it appears we don't (and I must admit to a certain unease about that "All", Keith) ~~ I still do not think you have demonstrated any justification in anything I might have said at any time, for your assertion that I can only perceive racism when Jews are concerned. That is not the case. I think I have demonstrated that it is far from the case. And it is for that that I should expect you to have the grace to apologise.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 03:30 PM

Yep - I'm a bit "uneasy" about racism; in fact I think the word praises it with faint damns
Can't for the life of me see what intrpretation other than racist stereotyping.
Will think about an apology - thought about it - sorry, no can do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:24 PM

Sorry, meant to add;
Especially as I bore the brunt of your vicious "Jew baiter" jibes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 05:13 PM

MtheGM,
There were but 3 sentences in that post.
The first sentence stated that no-one on the thread, least of all me, claimed that
" Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing."

The people who gave the explanation did blame culture, which I assumed "all" are exposed to, but in the second sentence I stated,"
but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 07:15 PM

Jim ~ That long-ago exchange on the BS:Palestine & BS:Palestine(continuation) threads did neither of us any credit: consisting of counter-insults & accusations subsequently withdrawn & apologised for, & ending thus

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: MtheGM - PM
Date: 22 Nov 11 - 03:47 PM
Ho-hum, Jim. Have it your own way. I thought I withdrew it when you said, did we have to go on in this schoolyard name-calling fashion? ~~ an appeal which I now repeat. Why don't we just stop it, eh? I am really not a racist, you know _ out'n'out or common-or-garden. Don't expect you're really a whatever it was either. It's all part of what I am beginning to recognise as the Curse Of Mudcat ~ a lovely site when it just does what it sez on the tin, but peculiarly prone for some reason to induce an antagonistic abusive vituperative invectively contentious mindset which carries one away into saying more than one meant; & then: BOOM!
I just don't have the energy for all this much animus these days...
Pax ~ fanites ~ cruze ~ ·····
~M~

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM
Pax Mike - life is too short
Jim Carroll

So I am distressed to find you raking it all up again to have another sulk.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 04:25 AM

I am criticised for not having any solutions to the crisis in Syria.
That puts me in good company with the world's greatest statesmen and leaders!
I do not favour a military intervention.
I also fear for Syria's Christians if and when the regime falls.

I started the thread to express horror at the indiscriminate attacks on civilians (hand=wringing sympathy according to the Hard Left), and anger that all attempts to secure a Security Council resolution were being blocked by Russia and China who also continued to arm the regime.
The Hard Left seemed not to share in that anger, reserving it all for Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 05:16 AM

Mike
Your hysterical accusations of "Jew baiting", which you dismiss as old argument or " whatever it was" are fairly fundamental to me, they are what really started all this and haven't gone away.
Your wishy washy shuffling around Keith's continuing racism is evidence of your double standards and doesn't hack it - I suppose we'll have to learn to live with it.
Keith:
Your "All Pakistanis" was just that - YOURS - nobody else made the claim, otherwise you would (gleefully) have produced it to humiliate me.
It continues to be your stance; maybe you want me to produce your "culture is all" pms where you continue to suggest that Pakistanis are culturally flawed?
As you say Mike, back to the subject in hand.
Keith has persistently attempted to close down any attempts to discuss Britain's role and responsibility in what is happening in the Middle East by making it out-of-bounds, thus making anything that is said here little more than the meaningless breast-beating he specialises in.
The only possible influence we can have in these events is to galvanise our governments (Ireland included) into some sort of positive action (which it has rejected throughout this affair, for political rather than practical reasons)
Suggestions have been made about short term action - (all rejected by the trio - no, not you Mike), with nothing put in its place other than more vacuous breast beating.
The openly carried out massacres have exposed the Assad regime as war criminals, yet the Assad family's gofer, Soulieman Marouf can operate with immunity in Britain and "His assets in Britain include a string of properties in London's most exclusive areas, worth an estimated £10 million."
A letter to The Times (put up above) from a Syrian exile points out how important Assad regards his links with Britain; seizing Marouf's assets would would be little enough, but it would be a step in the right direction - it certainly beats supplying the bastards with anti-riot gear.
In the long run, Britain's, and others' part in the arms trade has to be a major factor in the outcome of all this. Arming governments that are "not democratic and have bad human rights records" - (Vince Cable, current Business Secretary in the Cameron government) has been a contribution to the slaughter, in Britain's case, in Libya, and in the future, possibly in Bahrain. Another contribution would be to pass off criticism of our arms sales policy as "anti-British".
One thing that has to come out of all this as far as we are concerned is an ethical arms trade (if such a strange creature could exist).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 05:27 AM

"I also fear for Syria's Christians if and when the regime falls."
You cannot stand by and watch thousands being slaughtered because you might not like what will replace the regime doing the slaughtering.
The Syrian people feel they have been abandoned, and they have.
By doing nothing we push Syria into the arms of the fundamentalists.
The alternative is that things will go on as they have been in Syria for decades, when the Assad family tortured, murdered and imprisoned and the world said nothing.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/syria/?profile=tradeInvestment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 05:28 AM

Your "All Pakistanis" was just that - YOURS

No.
It was about why there was a particular issue with some British Pakistanis.
A reasom was suggested, but NOT BY ME.
To produce an explanation you would need knowledge.
I have none.

The suggested reason was that the culture gave rise to the behaviour.
Are not ALL within a culture affected by that culture.
That was my assumption.
We could debate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 05:39 AM

By doing nothing we push Syria into the arms of the fundamentalists.

Something we can agree on, but will you acknowledge the efforts being made by Britain and others?
Reminder.
05 Mar 2012
Mr Cameron continued to condemn the Syrian regime's on going violence saying,"the history of Homs is being written in the blood of its citizens."

He made three key pledges to help Syrian citizens, promising more humanitarian assistance, to hold the those responsible for "slaughter" to account and to bring about the political transition that would put a stop to the killing.

The Prime Minister said Britain was playing a leading role and had already provided an extra £2 million to aid agencies operating on the ground to help deliver emergency medical supplies and food rations for 20,000 people.

He added that Britain would this week, continue to secure a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an end to the violence and immediate humanitarian access.

"The longer access is denied, the more the world will believe that the Syrian regime is detemined to cover up the extent of the horror brought to bear on Baba Amr," he said.


"We are working to make sure those responsible for crimes are being held to account. The European Council agreed that there must be 'a day of reckoning' for those who are responsible," he added.

Mr Cameron said and he would use "every tool we can, sanctions, aid, the pressure of diplomacy, reaching out to the oposition in Syria and beyond."

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 06:15 AM

NO I will not - while nothing practical is being done it is the same mealy mouthed bullshit you have been spouting since the beginning of this thread.
You put it in a nutshell for you and the government (as was made clear by the Question Time panel - Assad is ok as long as he stops killing people in public.
Why not quit the stomach-heaving hypocricy and let Assad get on with the job of putting down these menaces - maybe send him some riot control gear so he can speed things up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 06:22 AM

Because he does not want it.
He prefers the effect of Russian bullets and shells.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 06:49 AM

Oh, dear, Jim. I suppose I shall have to remind you, that you persisted in using the words Holocaust & Nazi in connection with Israel, despite its being pointed out to you, by others as well as me, that these were peculiarly, nay uniquely, offensive words, for which you could easily have found substitute synonyms, within this particular context: and your persistence in these locutions, as we pointed out, was clearly intended to offend and insult. And what else does the verb 'to bait' in such a context mean, other than persistently to offend and insult and provoke?

I wanted to drop it. You have declined to do so, because "Your hysterical accusations of "Jew baiting", which you dismiss as old argument or " whatever it was" are fairly fundamental to me, they are what really started all this and haven't gone away".

Ah diddums. In the light of the above, what other descriptor would you have preferred for your campaign of deliberate insult and provocation in your pertinacioust "Holocaust"s and "Nazi"s? "Baiting" just happens to have been what you were doing ~ just like those dogs at the bull or the bear in the ancient sport. What else do you think you were doing, if not deliberately and incessantly 'baiting'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 07:19 AM

"Holocaust & Nazi in connection with Israel"
Which is in no way anti Semitic, as you would have it. It was a description of how many people see the behaviour of the Zionists who now call the tune in Israel, the only difference being, as was pointed out at the time, that there was/is no comparison in terms of scale, and none was suggested.
The Israeli soldiers who billeted with a Palestinian family who fed them and gave them blankets and rewarded the hospitality by shitting in all the cooking utensils, or thesoldiers on checkpoint who searched a man who claimed to be a violinist and forced him to play while they stood by and jeered (and were filmed doing so) surely rang ucomfortable bells for you, as it did for me (and many Israelis who protested at the time and made the same comparisons)
"Ah diddums."
Wonder if you'd make as light of it and refused to recognise as an insult my referring to you as a raging goose-stepper.
Piss off with your double standards Mike
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 07:21 AM

I don't goose-step.

You do bait.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM

Well thre we go
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 07:57 AM

Just for info of any who might read this:

The forcing to dance atrocity was it would appear, learned from Nazi practice in occupied Europe; it was often a game to make the rabbi dance.
However ~ The shitting in cooking utensils, homes, &c, was learnt, I regret to say, from the British Mandate forces in pre-Israel Palestine. I know, from a former kibbutznik friend of my parents who stayed with us in London during my teens, that it was what British soldiers would routinely do, together with the use of bedroom floors as latrines and personal clothing as arse-wipes, during raids on kibbutzim supposedly in search of Irgun & SternGang terorists.

Neither of these practices was in any way defensible; another thing to add to the present Israeli shame. But 'credit' where due, eh?

Just thought some here might find this of some interest. Not, of course, old mind·made·up·don't·confuse·with·facts Carroll.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 10:35 AM

"But 'credit' where due, eh?"
All designed to establish a racial or cultural 'superiority' over the victim - and your point is?
Don't tell your protege Keith - he doesn't like people saying nasty things about the Brits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 10:48 AM

Mike
This is silly - we've both established where we stand, and neither of us feels thwe have anything to apologise for.
I suggest we accept that as the situation and take it from there
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 11:01 AM

Agreed, Jim. What I have been trying to work towards.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 12:27 PM

"Don't tell your protege Keith - he doesn't like people saying nasty things about the Brits"

Say nasty things about Brits all you like - just make sure that they are true first.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 01:08 PM

I regret that what I said was true. The behaviour of the British troops posted to 'keep the peace' in pre-Israel Mandatory Palestine, along with that of the separately recruited Palestine Police, was disgraceful. The sort of incident I referred to above was notoriously commonplace. There was an awful sense of shame that British people could do such things. The same was said IIRC of those left holding the fort in various other colonies likely to be on the verge of independence: what went on in Kenya, on both sides, in MauMau days doesn't bear thinking of.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 12 - 07:00 PM

That may be so MtheGM, but what Jim Carroll said about them in this thread was a lie, and one he has not yet retracted.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 03:32 AM

"....was a lie, and one he has not yet retracted. "
But you were going to provide the evidence to prove it wrong - the licence for your and Keith's "sniper bullets" was recinded - the order was "not fulfilled" - you said so, so there must be evidence for this.
Just one little quote will do the trick, so go on, surprise us.
All academic now anyway; the Syrian people are not to be trusted with democracy so we all may just let Assad get on with his job, supply him with what he needs (eh Keith) and then we can all return to normal and get things back the way that they were.
As I said earlier, what a shower of tossers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 04:20 AM

The lie was that Britain supplied weapons to Syria Jim.
If Britain did, there would be some record somewhere.
There is not.
Or have you found some?
Please share.

Was it an honest mistake, or a lie to implicate Britain and deflect blame from Russia and China?

I am shocked that you now blatantly state, "the Syrian people are not to be trusted with democracy so we all may just let Assad get on with his job, supply him with what he needs"
No, no and no.
That is the position of Russia, China, Iran and Jim.

You still refer to "sniper bullets."
There is a complete absence of any evidence of any such.
Or have you found some?
Please share.

The reason I do not believe any "small arms ammunition" was supplied is because Russian and Chinese factories can produce it cheaper than British factories (workers pay and conditions) and because Britain does not even make ammunition compatible with Syria's Russian weapons.
How do you explain it Jim?