BS: Israel condemned by UN

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 06:42 AM

"It was YOU who raised this issue yet again, as you have done on scores of other threads."
I raised your racism, not the fansasised cultural implants you invented.
"I stated many times that it was NOT a Muslim issue."
Your attack was aimed at All British Male Pakistanis and you claimed they were "culturally implanted - if it was not the Muslim culture, what culture was it, Inuit maybe?
"Linking it to culture came not from me but from people close to or of that culture."
No it wasn't - you have yet to provide one single reference which claims that these crimes are the direct responsibility of any particular race, religion or culture - that was your suggestion alone and it remains your view.
"Culture is implanted Jim."
Your view, your responsibility, your statement - have the balls either to stand by it or withdraw it instead of blaming somebody else for your racism.
"Anything more to say about the airstrike on the arms convoy, and Israel NOT being condemned by UN?"
Not your "thread drift" rathole again YOU ARE NOT A SITE ADMINISTRATOR AND AFTER YOUR PERFORMANCE HERE, YOU WILL NOT EVEN BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AGAIN - DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ANYBODY HERE WHAT AND WHAT NOT TO DEBATE
"as a distraction when arguments go against you."
Thanks for yet another giggle - starts the day as I like it to
Anything to say on the New York Times article - you know - the one that illustrated Israel's guilt in the Sabra/Shatila massacre you kindly put up for us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 05:57 AM

You have been cynically attempting to manipulate this thread away from the awkward bits by whinging "thread change", now apparently you want to make it "Son of Muslim Prejudice"

It was YOU who raised this issue yet again, as you have done on scores of other threads.
I stated many times that it was NOT a Muslim issue.
Linking it to culture came not from me but from people close to or of that culture.

Your attacks on me are wholly groundless and just used as a distraction when arguments go against you.

Anything more to say about the airstrike on the arms convoy, and Israel NOT being condemned by UN?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 05:14 AM

"Culture is implanted Jim."
You have been cynically attempting to manipulate this thread away from the awkward bits by whinging "thread change", now apparently you want to make it "Son of Muslim Prejudice"
One word and no more.
The more you repeat this moronic phrase, the more you underline your own idiocy.
Culture is absorbed; some aspects like religion are actually taught, but others are taken from families, friends, the surrounding communities... if these change, the culture changes, sometimes, slowly, but when the changes are radical, extremely quickly, often too quickly to be dealt with comfortably.
We worked with Irish Travellers in the London area for thirty years; the older people we recorded were brought up in the first half of the 20th century in rural Ireland and only moved out of that environment in the 1950s. Others were born on the road and moved into cities like Dublin, Galway and Cork
Most of the children we knew were born in urban Britain and their culture was shaped by that fact, entirely different from their parents Three different cultures within one community - it's called 'acculturation'.
Whatever the causes of the tiny handful of crimes that you describe as being "culturally implanted", they have nothing to do with being "Pakistani" or "Muslim" or Asian..... or whatever nasty racist label you would attach to them. The few who are carrying them out have kicked over the traces of traditional culture, they drink, they have sex outside of marriage, they don't follow family guidance or religious dictats - they are misfits.
Your crude attempts to pin these crimes on being "Muslim" is little different to the Nazi doctors and psychologists who claimed that Jews were genetically and culturally inferior - rabid, murderous racism that took the lives of six million Jews (not forgetting those that people tend to forget; the quarter of a million Gypsies that suffered the same fate - not an accident that you have had them in your rifle-sights as a target for your racism before now).
I read a remarkable book last year (I enjoyed it so much I'm keeping the follow up for later).
It was called 'The Invisible Wall' and is the memoir of Harry Bernstein, a Jewish man who grew up in a community of impoverished Jews who had fled the pogroms in eastern Europe and had settled in a one-street cotton town outside Manchester just before World War I.   
The 'Invisible Wall' was the divide between the Jewish and the Lancashire natives.
The Jewish families employed gentiles to light their fires on a Saturday because their religion forbade them to work on the Sabbath.
The sister of the author fled the community to marry a local lad; on the night of her departure the family held a wake to mourn her 'death' and from then on she was treated as deceased.
The book ends with the drawing to a close of WWI and the changes it wrought in that traditional community.
The second volume covers the family emigrating to America - more changes, no doubt.
I lived in Manchester in the 1960s and many of my friends were Jewish and from the same area as the memoir was set - no "fire dogs", no invisible walls", no forcing children to marry within their faith.... just a bunch of sociable, welcoming people who shared my love of traditional music, theatre and literature, and my interest in history and politics.
Branding people as you do, as 'cultural criminals' is to ghettoise them and forbid them the right to settle, live their lives peacefully and change - it is to terrorise entire communities, old, young, men, women - it is racist persecution of an extreme kind.
I'm not surprised that you hold the views you do and express them as viciously forcibly as you do - it seems to be what you are (perhaps it is the result of a cultural implant!)
I have no doubt you have a few well thought out reply to all this, like "rubbish", or "lies" or "bigoted" - maybe you can fit in an "Anti-Semitic" somewhere.
On the other hand, maybe it is "too long" - seems to be a problem with you - sorry about that; I don't have your skill of dealing with complex subjects with one-liners!
I am surprised and disappointed that Mike seems to share them, or at least, is ready to defend them on your behalf.
"Well - in the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies..."
I always thought you would move away from being 'clever-clever' to maybe being just 'clever' - ah well; perhaps that's some sort of an implant too.
Finished that one - wan't more, reopen Muslim Prejudice, seems to be your natural habitat.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 02:44 AM

You compared your book [lengthwise anyhow] with Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit, Jim. What an interesting choice!, of all the brief books in the world. You might have gone on to her sequential story of The Flopsy Bunnies, where she tells us

"It is said that the effect of eating too much lettuce is 'soporific'."

The author of your book seems to have been aiming for a similar effect to Mr McGregor's lettuces! Perhaps that was the train of thought which led you to that rather odd analogy?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:53 PM

There are a few countries we should worry about because they have the hydrogen bomb.
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, The U.S., and Israel.

The U.S. has already used it.

Iran doesn't have it. Still, the Israeli government wants to bomb them.

Jim Carroll is just expressing what people are not willing to look at, being scared shitless that one of these loose cannon countries would use it if they couldn't make do with the lesser weapons. War has a way of escalating.

Don't tell me that the heads of state of these countries are in their right minds when it comes to deploying their militaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:33 PM

"but sure as hell I don't!"

Nor do I, especially the red stuff, as I always try to avoid the spray of spittle.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 03:49 PM

"every single oneof them warned that in no way should any racial/cultural conclusions be drawn from their statements – as did Judges, police officials, researchers..............."

.,,.

Yes - Hmm - Well - in the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies...

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 03:46 PM

Culture is implanted Jim.
That is a perfectly reasonable statement and not in the least racist.
If culture influences all, then it is OK for me to say all, and implanted.


If you challenge that all are influenced by their culture, give us what proportion you will accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 03:28 PM

"Don't be so touchy, "
I'll take that as a "no" then Mike.
.,,.
"No" to what, Jim? I don't recall any question you have put to me for which a yes/no answer would have been appropriate. You called me 'evasive' for pointing out to Stringy that I was addressing your confusions in posting rather than the main gravamen of the thread's topic ~~ a view which your above apostrophe seems fully to confirm.
   You are in a state of considerable confusion AFAICS, Jim. Would do well to stop digging if you want my opinion ~~ which I fully appreciate you don't so don't trouble to respond. You must be much too busy, anyway, scanning & copying & pasting from this turgid tome you are treating us to such reams'n'reams'n'reams of. I don't know how accurate is Keith's assessment that he doesn't believe anyone reads the monster passages you copy: but sure as hell I don't! Still, carry on with it if you must: proggally keeps you from worse mischief at that, my duckling...

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 02:47 PM

"They do not contradict the Israeli version of events."
'Fraid they do – they put the Israelis there and responsible
"It is just an apocryphal story and probably made up."
If you'd bother to read your links you will find the same story repeated from several sources.
"Your very long book is not reliable evidence."
All accredited and well known sources – particularly the Israeli ones.
Short book – bit longer than Peter Rabbit, but there you go!
"You can be certain that no-one else has read it all this far."
You hope!!
Thanks for the NYP link – confirms the book to perfection - more below
They said that the behaviour was due to the culture.
I'll take that as an admission that nobody mentioned a "cultural implant" or "all male Pakistanis" which leaves it as your invention – and absolutely racist.
every single oneof them warned that in no way should any racial/cultural conclusions be drawn from their statements – as did Judges, police officials, researchers...............
"If you challenge that assumption, please state the proportion that you will accept"
Culturally implanted – not a ******* word.
"Don't be so touchy, "
I'll take that as a "no" then Mike.
Jim Carroll

"They do not contradict the Israeli version of events."
'Fraid they do – they put the Israelis there and responsible
"It is just an apocryphal story and probably made up."
If you'd bother to read your links you will find the same story repeated from several sources.
"Your very long book is not reliable evidence."
All accredited and well known sources – particularly the Israeli ones.
Short book – bit longer than Peter Rabbit, but there you go!
"You can be certain that no-one else has read it all this far."
You hope!!
Thanks for the NYP link – confirms the book perfection
They said that the behaviour was due to the culture.
I'll take that as an admission that nobody mentioned a "cultural implant" or "all male Pakistanis" which leaves it as your invention – and absolutely racist.
every single oneof them warned that in no way should any racial/cultural conclusions be drawn from their statements – as did Judges, police officials, researchers...............
"If you challenge that assumption, please state the proportion that you will accept"
Culturally implanted – not a ******* word.
"Don't be so touchy, "
I'll take that as a "no" then Mike.

''Shortly after that we went down to the shelter,'' the doctor said, ''and found that one of the Palestinian nurses down there had been raped repeatedly and then shot.'' He identified her as Intisar Ismail, 19 years old. Two Physicians Are Abducted
Around the same time Friday, two Palestinian doctors at the hospital, one named Sami Katib, were abducted by the militiamen who entered the hospital. A Palestinian patient was kidnapped with them.
At approximately 3:45 P.M., witnesses say, yet another group of militiamen arrived at the Akka Hospital. Their arrival suggested to the Asian doctor that there was very little coordination between these men, especially since they all tended to ask the same question. The militiamen said they wanted to see the nurses. He told the men that the nurses had all fled.
At this point, according to the doctor, the militiamen asked to search the hospital. During the course of their work, they found a photograph of Yasir Arafat in the Asian doctor's room.
''You are a terrorist,'' one of the militiamen said to him. Doctor Pleads for His Life
At that point, the doctor said, he began to beg for his life. He was told to bring the nurses back to the hospital by 7 P.M., or else, the militiamen said, they would blow his head off.
Fortunately for the physician, by about 5 P.M. Friday, an International Red Cross convoy made it to the hospital and evacuated everyone left there. The doctor said that at about 5:30 P.M., as he was leaving the facility for safety, he saw at the southern end of Shatila what he estimated to be 80 to 90 bodies. They had been mixed together with sand and were being pushed by bulldozers.
This area can be seen very clearly with the naked eye from the Kuwaiti Embassy traffic circle - the site of the telescope and binocular-equipped Israeli observation post. Whether the Israelis actually looked down and saw what was happening is unknown. Crisis at Gaza Hospital
At Gaza Hospital, on the other end of the camp, matters were also beginning to unravel Friday morning. Just after dawn a nurse on the eighth floor was shot and killed by a sniper, according to witnesses. At about noon, a woman who was director of the hospital called a meeting of the staff in light of the stories being told by the hundreds of people who were gathered around the facility, and by the wounded who had been brought inside.
Her message was simple: If you are a Palestinian, you would be well advised to run for your life, toward Israeli lines and Hamra Street.
About 20 foreign doctors and nurses and two Palestinian male nurses stayed behind to tend to the 37 patients who could not be moved. Everyone else fled.
Among those who ran were Taleb Alouki, the carpenter from Shatila, and his brother Fawzi. Earlier in the day, they managed to get back into the camp, to the shelter where they had left their neighbors the night before. Outside the shelter they found the bodies of 15 men who had been tied together with a rope, shot and scalped. 500 People Flee the Area
The two brothers ran back to the Gaza Hospital, through the maze of buildings and alleyways that make up the refugee camps. When everyone fled at around noon, they recalled, they and about 400 to 500 other people dashed north, toward Corniche Mazraa, the main boulevard separating West Beirut proper from the Palestinian-controlled southern suburbs.
This was also where the northern Israeli perimeter around the camps was situated. They sought refuge in the Warda al-Yazigi School, just south of Corniche Mazraa. It was by now early Friday afternoon.
Sometime, either in the morning or early afternoon, the precise time cannot be established, a CBS News cameraman was on the perimeter of the Sabra camp, where he filmed a middle-aged Palestinian woman appealing to two Israeli soldiers to stop the killings going on inside the camps. 'Big Boss' Is Informed
Some of this information had clearly filtered up to the Israeli command by this time. According to Mr. Sharon's statement before the Israeli Parliament, at about 11 A.M. Friday the Israeli division commander, Amos Yaron, met with General Drori and ''raised suspicions concerning the method of operation of the Phalangists.'' An Order to Halt Operation
According to Mr. Sharon, General Drori then ordered the Phalangist liaison officer to halt the operation. It is clear from all accounts that by Friday afternoon things did quiet down somewhat in the camps but there were still fires raging and shooting going on, according to people who were on the scene.
What happened next was probably the most controversial decision taken by the Israeli high command, save for sending the Phalangists into the camps in the first place.
At 4:30 P.M. Friday afternoon, after General Drori was said by Mr. Sharon to have ordered an end to the operation, he and General Eytan met again with the Phalangists. At that time, Mr. Sharon said, it was ''agreed that all of the Phalangists would leave the refugee camps on Saturday morning.''

An Apparent Contradiction
"I was here throughout the siege" of Beirut, said Tineke Uluf, a 30-year-old Dutch nurse who was working in the Gaza Hospital, "and I never remember the sky being lit up that brightly over the camps.
"It was like a sports stadium lit up for a football game," she recalled. "It started about 7 P.M. and continued late into the night."

"Hirsch Goodman, the military correspondent of The Jersalem Post, reported that he had been shown a cable sent at 11 P.M. Thursday from the head of the Phalangist units in Shatila to the Israeli command in East Beirut.
It said, Mr. Goodman wrote, "To this time we have killed 300 civilians and terrorists."
The cable was immediately distributed in the command and sent to Tel Aviv, he reported."

What happened next was probably the most controversial decision taken by the Israeli high command, save for sending the Phalangists into the camps in the first place.
At 4:30 P.M. Friday afternoon, after General Drori was said by Mr. Sharon to have ordered an end to the operation, he and General Eytan met again with the Phalangists. At that time, Mr. Sharon said, it was ''agreed that all of the Phalangists would leave the refugee camps on Saturday morning.''
An Apparent Contradiction
At this point, officials in Lebanon note, there appears to be a serious contradiction in Mr. Sharon's account of what happened. He said the Phalangists were ordered to stop their operations in the camps at 11 A.M. Friday. Yet at 4:30 P.M. they were told that they could stay in the camps until Saturday morning. Repeated efforts to interview General Drori to clarify this point were unsuccessful.
The available evidence suggests that the operation was not halted on Friday, but that it may have been slowed down somewhat. Israeli officers in East Beirut said what happened at the 4:30 Friday meeting was that the Phalangists told the Israelis that they needed more time to ''clean up'' the area.
The Israelis said that instead of moving troops in to stop the militia operation, the Israeli command decided to give those militiamen already in the camp time to finish what they were doing.But at the same time, the Israelis decided to keep additional militiamen from moving into the camp.

SOME PHALANGISTS BEGIN LEAVING
The Israelis said that instead of moving troops in to stop the militia operation, the Israeli command decided to give those militiamen already in the camp time to finish what they were doing.But at the same time, the Israelis decided to keep additional militiamen from moving into the camp. Some Phalangists Begin Leaving
Lebanese Army sources confirmed that by Friday afternoon Phalangist units with trucks and halftracks began moving out of the airport back to their home bases, just as Mr. Sharon said.
Inside the camps, the militiamen already on the scene continued with their work. At some time between 4 P.M. and 5 P.M. Friday a Reuters correspondent, Paul Eedle, spoke to an Israeli colonel at the Kuwaiti intersection and asked him about the operations taking place in the camp.
The colonel, who declined to be identified, told Mr. Eedle that his men were working on the basis of two principles: that the Israeli Army should not get involved, but that the area should be ''purified.'

Sounds of gunfire and explosions could be heard emanating from the northern end of Shatila, witnesses recalled, and they could also be heard by Taleb Alouki and his brother Fawzi. They, along with 400 to 500 other people, had fled from Gaza Hospital in the afternoon when word came that the militiamen were advancing in their direction. They took shelter at the Al-Yazigi school, cowering in courtyards and classrooms.
Some of the Palestinian civilians who tried to flee the camps for the safety of downtown say they were prevented from leaving by the Israelis outside the camps. The following account by the two brothers, was corroborated by the testimony of five other people who were later interviewed separately and independently of each other. Palestinians Decide to Run
On Friday afternoon, with the sound of gunfire seeming to get closer to the school where they were hiding. the Alouki brothers and the others decided to make a run for Corniche Mazraa and the Israeli lines.
The throng, showing a white flag, moved from the school up Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum to Corniche Mazraa. As they approached the Israeli checkpoint on the main boulevard, kitty-corner to the Barbir Hospital, they were stopped by an Israeli soldier. The soldier, by all accounts, was clearly surprised and probably frightened to see all of these people coming at him.
The soldier shouted in Arabic to the crowd to stay back, then went into crouch position at the corner of a building and aimed his gun at the people, who immediately started shrieking and turned around.

CROWD CHOOSES A SPOKESMAN
The soldier, members of the crowd recalled, then told them to send one person forward to explain what they wanted. A man was chosen and sent to speak to the Israeli.
According to the people, the spokesman told the soldier that Haddad militiamen were slaughtering civilians in the camps and that they were trying to escape.
The Israeli soldier told the spokesman that there was nothing he could do, and added that if they remained in the area, he would open fire.
People began protesting; women started weeping. The Israeli soldier then reportedly fired two volleys into the air to scatter the crowd. At that point, witnesses say, an Israeli tank rolled from Corniche Mazraa onto Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum and chased the people a few hundred feet back toward the camps. A Witness Corroborates Account
Reporters who went to the intersection last Thursday afternoon found a Lebanese man who lived in a first-floor apartment who said he had seen the entire episode from his balcony. He confirmed the refugees' story without any prompting.
If the refugees' account is true, it would appear that by Friday afternoon the Israeli commanders had given no order to allow civilians fleeing the scene to pass through the perimeter set up around the camps by the Israeli Army.
''If we went one way we ran into the Israelis; if we went the other way we ran into the Haddad men,'' Taleb Alouki said, ''so we all just decided to turn around and hide in the school.''
Almost a week later, they were still there



"Shortly after that we went down to the shelter,'' the doctor said, ''and found that one of the Palestinian nurses down there had been raped repeatedly and then shot." He identified her as Intisar Ismail, 19 years old. Two Physicians Are Abducted
Around the same time Friday, two Palestinian doctors at the hospital, one named Sami Katib, were abducted by the militiamen who entered the hospital. A Palestinian patient was kidnapped with them.
At approximately 3:45 P.M., witnesses say, yet another group of militiamen arrived at the Akka Hospital. Their arrival suggested to the Asian doctor that there was very little coordination between these men, especially since they all tended to ask the same question. The militiamen said they wanted to see the nurses. He told the men that the nurses had all fled.
At this point, according to the doctor, the militiamen asked to search the hospital. During the course of their work, they found a photograph of Yasir Arafat in the Asian doctor's room.
''You are a terrorist,'' one of the militiamen said to him. Doctor Pleads for His Life
At that point, the doctor said, he began to beg for his life. He was told to bring the nurses back to the hospital by 7 P.M., or else, the militiamen said, they would blow his head off.
Fortunately for the physician, by about 5 P.M. Friday, an International Red Cross convoy made it to the hospital and evacuated everyone left there. The doctor said that at about 5:30 P.M., as he was leaving the facility for safety, he saw at the southern end of Shatila what he estimated to be 80 to 90 bodies. They had been mixed together with sand and were being pushed by bulldozers.
This area can be seen very clearly with the naked eye from the Kuwaiti Embassy traffic circle - the site of the telescope and binocular-equipped Israeli observation post. Whether the Israelis actually looked down and saw what was happening is unknown. Crisis at Gaza Hospital
At Gaza Hospital, on the other end of the camp, matters were also beginning to unravel Friday morning. Just after dawn a nurse on the eighth floor was shot and killed by a sniper, according to witnesses. At about noon, a woman who was director of the hospital called a meeting of the staff in light of the stories being told by the hundreds of people who were gathered around the facility, and by the wounded who had been brought inside.
Her message was simple: If you are a Palestinian, you would be well advised to run for your life, toward Israeli lines and Hamra Street.
About 20 foreign doctors and nurses and two Palestinian male nurses stayed behind to tend to the 37 patients who could not be moved. Everyone else fled.
Among those who ran were Taleb Alouki, the carpenter from Shatila, and his brother Fawzi. Earlier in the day, they managed to get back into the camp, to the shelter where they had left their neighbors the night before. Outside the shelter they found the bodies of 15 men who had been tied together with a rope, shot and scalped. 500 People Flee the Area
The two brothers ran back to the Gaza Hospital, through the maze of buildings and alleyways that make up the refugee camps. When everyone fled at around noon, they recalled, they and about 400 to 500 other people dashed north, toward Corniche Mazraa, the main boulevard separating West Beirut proper from the Palestinian-controlled southern suburbs.
This was also where the northern Israeli perimeter around the camps was situated. They sought refuge in the Warda al-Yazigi School, just south of Corniche Mazraa. It was by now early Friday afternoon.
Sometime, either in the morning or early afternoon, the precise time cannot be established, a CBS News cameraman was on the perimeter of the Sabra camp, where he filmed a middle-aged Palestinian woman appealing to two Israeli soldiers to stop the killings going on inside the camps. 'Big Boss' Is Informed
Some of this information had clearly filtered up to the Israeli command by this time. According to Mr. Sharon's statement before the Israeli Parliament, at about 11 A.M. Friday the Israeli division commander, Amos Yaron, met with General Drori and ''raised suspicions concerning the method of operation of the Phalangists.'' An Order to Halt Operation
According to Mr. Sharon, General Drori then ordered the Phalangist liaison officer to halt the operation. It is clear from all accounts that by Friday afternoon things did quiet down somewhat in the camps but there were still fires raging and shooting going on, according to people who were on the scene.
What happened next was probably the most controversial decision taken by the Israeli high command, save for sending the Phalangists into the camps in the first place.
At 4:30 P.M. Friday afternoon, after General Drori was said by Mr. Sharon to have ordered an end to the operation, he and General Eytan met again with the Phalangists. At that time, Mr. Sharon said, it was ''agreed that all of the Phalangists would leave the refugee camps on Saturday morning.''

An Apparent Contradiction
"I was here throughout the siege" of Beirut, said Tineke Uluf, a 30-year-old Dutch nurse who was working in the Gaza Hospital, "and I never remember the sky being lit up that brightly over the camps.
"It was like a sports stadium lit up for a football game," she recalled. "It started about 7 P.M. and continued late into the night."

"Hirsch Goodman, the military correspondent of The Jersalem Post, reported that he had been shown a cable sent at 11 P.M. Thursday from the head of the Phalangist units in Shatila to the Israeli command in East Beirut.
It said, Mr. Goodman wrote, "To this time we have killed 300 civilians and terrorists."
The cable was immediately distributed in the command and sent to Tel Aviv, he reported."

What happened next was probably the most controversial decision taken by the Israeli high command, save for sending the Phalangists into the camps in the first place.
At 4:30 P.M. Friday afternoon, after General Drori was said by Mr. Sharon to have ordered an end to the operation, he and General Eytan met again with the Phalangists. At that time, Mr. Sharon said, it was ''agreed that all of the Phalangists would leave the refugee camps on Saturday morning.''
An Apparent Contradiction
At this point, officials in Lebanon note, there appears to be a serious contradiction in Mr. Sharon's account of what happened. He said the Phalangists were ordered to stop their operations in the camps at 11 A.M. Friday. Yet at 4:30 P.M. they were told that they could stay in the camps until Saturday morning. Repeated efforts to interview General Drori to clarify this point were unsuccessful.
The available evidence suggests that the operation was not halted on Friday, but that it may have been slowed down somewhat. Israeli officers in East Beirut said what happened at the 4:30 Friday meeting was that the Phalangists told the Israelis that they needed more time to ''clean up'' the area.
The Israelis said that instead of moving troops in to stop the militia operation, the Israeli command decided to give those militiamen already in the camp time to finish what they were doing.But at the same time, the Israelis decided to keep additional militiamen from moving into the camp.

SOME PHALANGISTS BEGIN LEAVING
The Israelis said that instead of moving troops in to stop the militia operation, the Israeli command decided to give those militiamen already in the camp time to finish what they were doing.But at the same time, the Israelis decided to keep additional militiamen from moving into the camp. Some Phalangists Begin Leaving
Lebanese Army sources confirmed that by Friday afternoon Phalangist units with trucks and halftracks began moving out of the airport back to their home bases, just as Mr. Sharon said.
Inside the camps, the militiamen already on the scene continued with their work. At some time between 4 P.M. and 5 P.M. Friday a Reuters correspondent, Paul Eedle, spoke to an Israeli colonel at the Kuwaiti intersection and asked him about the operations taking place in the camp.
The colonel, who declined to be identified, told Mr. Eedle that his men were working on the basis of two principles: that the Israeli Army should not get involved, but that the area should be ''purified.'

Sounds of gunfire and explosions could be heard emanating from the northern end of Shatila, witnesses recalled, and they could also be heard by Taleb Alouki and his brother Fawzi. They, along with 400 to 500 other people, had fled from Gaza Hospital in the afternoon when word came that the militiamen were advancing in their direction. They took shelter at the Al-Yazigi school, cowering in courtyards and classrooms.
Some of the Palestinian civilians who tried to flee the camps for the safety of downtown say they were prevented from leaving by the Israelis outside the camps. The following account by the two brothers, was corroborated by the testimony of five other people who were later interviewed separately and independently of each other. Palestinians Decide to Run
On Friday afternoon, with the sound of gunfire seeming to get closer to the school where they were hiding. the Alouki brothers and the others decided to make a run for Corniche Mazraa and the Israeli lines.
The throng, showing a white flag, moved from the school up Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum to Corniche Mazraa. As they approached the Israeli checkpoint on the main boulevard, kitty-corner to the Barbir Hospital, they were stopped by an Israeli soldier. The soldier, by all accounts, was clearly surprised and probably frightened to see all of these people coming at him.
The soldier shouted in Arabic to the crowd to stay back, then went into crouch position at the corner of a building and aimed his gun at the people, who immediately started shrieking and turned around.

CROWD CHOOSES A SPOKESMAN
The soldier, members of the crowd recalled, then told them to send one person forward to explain what they wanted. A man was chosen and sent to speak to the Israeli.
According to the people, the spokesman told the soldier that Haddad militiamen were slaughtering civilians in the camps and that they were trying to escape.
The Israeli soldier told the spokesman that there was nothing he could do, and added that if they remained in the area, he would open fire.
People began protesting; women started weeping. The Israeli soldier then reportedly fired two volleys into the air to scatter the crowd. At that point, witnesses say, an Israeli tank rolled from Corniche Mazraa onto Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum and chased the people a few hundred feet back toward the camps. A Witness Corroborates Account
Reporters who went to the intersection last Thursday afternoon found a Lebanese man who lived in a first-floor apartment who said he had seen the entire episode from his balcony. He confirmed the refugees' story without any prompting.
If the refugees' account is true, it would appear that by Friday afternoon the Israeli commanders had given no order to allow civilians fleeing the scene to pass through the perimeter set up around the camps by the Israeli Army.
''If we went one way we ran into the Israelis; if we went the other way we ran into the Haddad men,'' Taleb Alouki said, ''so we all just decided to turn around and hide in the school.''
Almost a week later, they were still there

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 01:40 PM

Jim, I keep wading through the ridiculous, long transpositions from your book.
They do not contradict the Israeli version of events.
I have already shown how an original source was embellished in your book.
Your very long extract posted yesterday at 12.46 pm relied heavily on an un-named person. "Furthermore, a high-ranking American official confirmed that the United States "would be extremely surprised if Israel...."
Who was he/her?
Who reported his/her words?
It is just an apocryphal story and probably made up.

Your very long book is not reliable evidence.
You can keep posting it but I am not going to waste any more time on it.
You can be certain that no-one else has read it all this far.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 01:39 PM

""Don, if any of those states believed that Israel was guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and mass murder of civilians, they would break off relations and impose sanctions.""

Don't be ridiculous!
They all trade with Uncle Sam as well, and since Uncle Sam has a power of veto at the UN, which would have to approve any such sanctions, they would jeopardise that trade for nothing.

Why do you suppose that the UN, which you claim is anti Israel, hasn't done anything of the sort over the West Bank encroachment, which it has classified as illegal?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 01:33 PM

Don't be so touchy, Jim. Don had defended your 'florid' style as being nevertheless trustworthy in content. I was differing from this assessment. I can't see anything 'evasive' in pointing this out when Stringy tried to equate this with a specific attitude to Israeli aggression, which was in no way the point at issue in that particular exchange. One can't deal with every aspect of this broad topic in every post, and I can't see why you should denounce me as 'evasive' in pointing out that I had not attempted to do so. That's the very sort of abuse that you will habitually indulge in, which had provoked the post under consideration in the first place.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 01:29 PM

New York Times article quote (there are 11 pages for you to have chosen from and you chose - what??)

I chose a quote that showed that Israel was right to doubt that all the fighters would keep to the agreement and withdraw.

Not one of them made any comment about "all male Pakistanis"

They said that the behaviour was due to the culture.
My assumption is that ALL are influenced to some extent, however small, by the culture they grew up in.
That is NOT a racist assumption.
If you challenge that assumption, please state the proportion that you will accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 01:26 PM

More of the same
Jim Carroll

"What Mr. Sharon described to Parliament as a process of ''checking and clearing out'' the refugee camps was, he said, a job that was to be performed by the Phalangists or the Lebanese Army.
By Wednesday afternoon, sniper fire and Israeli shelling had begun around the Sabra and Shatila camps, and it was intensifying. Dr. Per Maehlumshagen, a Norwegian orthopedic surgeon at Gaza Hospital, not far from the Shatila camp, recalled that ''there was a lot of sniping and some shelling'' around the hospital.
''Around noon on Wednesday,'' Dr. Maehlumshagen recalled, ''the first wounded started to be brought in. That was the first time we began to hear - I don't remember how - that the Israelis were surrounding the camp and setting up checkpoints.''
Zaki F., a Palestinian whose concrete-block home is only a few hundred yards from the hospital, said that by Wednesday afternoon, ''no one was moving in or out of the camps.''
The Israelis Make a Request
At roughly the same time - the precise hour is uncertain - Mr. Sharon said that the Israeli command in West Beirut contacted the Lebanese Army operations chief for the sector to ASK WHETHER THE LEBANESE WERE WILLING TO GO INTO THE CAMPS ON WHAT WERE TERMED SEARCH-AND-DESTROY MISSIONS.
A Lebanese colonel, Michel On, rejected the Israeli proposal. This was corroborated in Mr. Sharon's subsequent statement. Colonel On explained in an interview that his refusal was based on the fact that the Lebanese Army was just then reconstituting itself as an organization. He said it was also then beginning to win the confidence of the Moslem militiamen, Moslem residents and Palestinians of West Beirut."

"The artillery fire, many of these patients later said, appeared to be coming from Israeli positions overlooking the camp to the west. Armed elements inside Sabra may also have been firing at targets outside the camp."

"Mr. Gerti wrote in Haaretz that at one point he had been approached by Israeli soldiers stationed outside Shatila. They told him that on Thursday evening, several Palestinian women ran out of Shatila crying hysterically that their children were being butchered."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 12:30 PM

There were no ground whatever to assume that there were any PLO fighters there - the 'light show' lasted the full length of the massacre and not one shot was fired in opposition.
Perhaps you would like the rest of your article from the totally irellevant New York Times article quote (there are 11 pages for you to have chosen from and you chose - what??) - I've added the link which you continue to omit in order to discourage people from searching the article out.
Please, please tell me that the NYT is an anti-Semite liar and cannot be trusted.
"Jack Straw, Ann Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Mohamed Shafiq, Albhai-Brown'
Not one of them made any comment about "all male Pakistanis", and nobody would have dared to suggest a "cultural implant" for fear of being hit with a 'incitement to race hatred' charge - that is entirely your invention and it is that which makes you the racist you are.
You cold of course, prove me wrong, but so far you have resisted all attempts to provide one single example of any of your 'sources' saying anything resembling your inflammatory statement.
You have had ample time to back your claim and you have consitently , by your non compliance, refused to do so, don't suppose for one minute you will do so now.
Mike
"I was commenting on Jim's style & content,"
A typically evasive reply
I have always tried to back up my claims with relaible documented proof - perhaps you might claim that Keith has done the same here and when I have been proved wrong I have withdrawn my statement and apologised - No? I thought not.
Jim Carroll

First, the Christian militiamen entered the camp with the full knowledge of the Israeli Army, which provided them with at least some of their arms and provisions and assisted them with flares during nighttime operations.
Second, the Israelis had to have known that there was deep and pervasive fear of the Christian militiamen among the Palestinian residents of the camps, because of past atrocities committed by the Christians and Palestinians on each other during the Lebanese civil war.
Third, the Israeli Army began to learn on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 16, that civilians were being killed in Shatila, SINCE FROM THE MOMENT THESE ARMED MEN ENTERED THE CAMPS THEY BEGAN MURDERING PEOPLE AT RANDOM AND THOSE WHO FLED FLEE TOLD THE ISRAELIS WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
The Extent of the Evidence
By Friday morning, there was enough evidence of untoward acts by the militiamen that the senior Israeli commander in Lebanon ordered their operations halted, according to the Israeli Government. Yet, according to Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, the militiamen doing the killing were told by the Israelis they could stay inside the camps until Saturday morning, and the murders continued until they left.
FOURTH, THERE IS EVERY INDICATION THAT WHEN THE ISRAELI ARMY ENTERED WEST BEIRUT EARLIER THAT WEEK THAT IT ENCOUNTERED NO SERIOUS RESISTANCE, IF ANY, FROM THE SABRA AND SHATILA REFUGEE CAMPS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE CAMPS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RESIGNED TO THE ISRAELIS COMING INTO THEIR AREA AND DISARMING THEM.
Evidence of Haddad's Role
Finally, there is still no solid information on the precise makeup and command structure of the Christian militia force, which also apparently included some Shiite Moslems. But there is ample circumstantial evidence that members of the Israeli-armed and trained militia of Maj. Saad Haddad and members of the Christian Phalangist militia - also known as the Lebanese Forces -were in the camps. Whether or not they were there under orders from Major Haddad or the Phalangist militiary and political leadership is not clear. The possibility of breakaway elements being involved cannot be ruled out at this point.
Once Yasir Arafat, the P.L.O. chairman, decided in early July that he would be leaving Lebanon, his major concern was to make certain that the Lebanese Government and the special United States envoy, Philip C. Habib, provided proper security guarantees for the thousands of Palestinian civilians who would be left behind without P.L.O. protection.
During the talks on ending the Israeli siege of Beirut, P.L.O. officials and the Sunni Moslem leaders of West Beirut - notably Prime Minister Shafik al-Wazzan and former Prime Minister Saeb Salam - repeatedly expressed the view that Israeli tanks could not be permitted to enter West Beirut with Phalangist militiamen in their train.
The reason was fear.
This fear, which the negotiators repeatedly expressed in public and which was surely known to the Israelis, was rooted in a series of mass killings and attacks - perpetrated by Lebanese Christian militiamen against Palestinians and Moslems, and by Moslems and Palestinians against Christians - that dated from the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1976. A Preventative Measure
It was to prevent such bloody incidents, according to Mr. Salam, a key figure in the talks, that the Moslem and Palestinian representatives insisted that United States, Italian and French troops be deployed in West Beirut until the Lebanese Army was prepared to take over the enforcement of law and order.
Mr. Salam said that this was ''precisely why we asked, and received, assurances from the United States that the Israelis would not enter West Beirut.''

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 11:29 AM

+1 Baroness Warsi.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 11:21 AM

Stringsinger ~~ I was commenting on Jim's style & content, which Don had described as florid tho generally correct.

My words on this occasion had no application to any attitude concerning Israel one way or the other, so I can't at all see the point of that 'worrabout' question you addressed to me.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 11:15 AM

Sorry, Don's quote was inadvertently stuck on the front of Jim's in the first line.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 11:00 AM

The comment was definitely made and you know damn well it was, but as I said, it didn't suit your agenda, so you blanked it>So who was the "enemy" that you claimed had "positions" there.

New York Times.
" At some locations (in Beirut after the "withdrawal", fierce gun battles erupted between Israeli soldiers and Moslem militiamen."

Israel was right to assume that fighters would be left after the promise to withdraw.

Don, if any of those states believed that Israel was guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and mass murder of civilians, they would break off relations and impose sanctions.

Don.
The comment was definitely made and you know damn well it was, but as I said, it didn't suit your agenda, so you blanked it.

Many people said we should avoid pointing the figure at any community and or culture.
The six people I quoted as stating that aspects of that culture led to a disproportionate representation of members of that culture most definitely did not.

Jack Straw, Ann Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Mohamed Shafiq, Albhai-Brown +1(?)

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 10:21 AM

One is a Senate resolution sponsored by Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican. It says that if Israel "is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 10:16 AM

The newest news is that both Senators Boxer and Wyden support an attack on Iran by Israel if it is preemptive. This shows how much the U.S. is an influence in their support of Israel's hegemony.


"animadvertive shibboleths of the left"
Naturally, an attack on liberals and left-thinking people is used as a device to support the Israeli argument for war. What about the animadverted shibboleths of the Israeli right?


Here's a logical fallacy. Israel, who has the ability to sell arms to other countries claims they don't have the ability to secure their own borders militarily so they rely
on the U.S. as Big Brother to help them out.

This is typical of the bully that says to the victim, "I had to protect myself".
It's an old story.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 09:12 AM

""They did not say such a thing Don.""

The comment was definitely made and you know damn well it was, but as I said, it didn't suit your agenda, so you blanked it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 09:09 AM

""All the countries I mentioned are "neutral" and none would be on friendly termes with a state guilty of the crimes Jim and you ascribe to Israel.""

Do you understand what neutral means Keith?

Ireland traded with both the UK and Germany in the early part of WW2. Do you think that they approved of Belsen because of that?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 09:03 AM

""that faintly ridiculous air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted"; together with the apparent [might one almost say 'paranoid'?] conviction that any who do not share his doctrinaire views must be part of some totalitarian conspiracy against what is, to all right-thinking people, the undisputed "good".""

Perhaps then Mike you would like to supply a rational, reasoned and logical response to the following question.

Why, in your opinion, does the above quote not apply equally to Keith, with his continual insistence that Israel is innocent because Israel said so?

Any and all evidence to the contrary is dismissed as the lies of antisemites, racists and bigots. He has in fact called me a racist, a bigot and an antisemite on many posts in this and other threads.

What makes his input different/more credible/less obnoxious than Jim's.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 09:02 AM

"You need light to identify enemy positions."
That is exactly what you wrote Keith - can't fault you there.
However, the only people in the camps apart from the Phalangists were the refugees, a few medical volunteers and some Israeli soldiers who witnessed (and refused to get involved with or stop) the massacres.
The PLO had withdrawn two weeks earlier and the Israeli regime were well aware of this.
Despite this fact, the Israelis provided a massive and prolonged light display - everybody who was in the vicinity has commented on its intensity and the fact that it was constant.
You have been provided with this information over and over again and, as you claim to have read the evidence, you must know this.
So who was the "enemy" that you claimed had "positions" there.
Perhaps the Israeli's, out of the kindness of their hearts, had decided to give the kids a firework display before they were slaughtered - you reckon?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 08:08 AM

It was the 3,500 massacre victims who Keith described as "the enemy"

Another lie Jim.
Here is the post where I simply described the purpose of illumination flares.

"You need light to identify enemy positions.
You do not need light to carry out indiscriminate murder in a crowded camp.
The Israelis stepped in and stopped the massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:38 AM

Apologies - slight mix up there.
It was the 3,500 massacre victims who Keith described as "the enemy" - presumably he considers the Bedouins as expendable
Must get it right.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:36 AM

You say that ""They were mostly people from that culture. No other explanation was forthcoming."", and for that reason you believed them. You were convinced of their veracity, yet when they said that no generalised conclusions about that culture should be drawn from their comments, you chose not to believe them.

They did not say such a thing Don.
They all attributed the behaviour to aspects of the culture, specifically the absence of mixed relationships outside marriage, absence of any courtship relationships, unhappy arranged marriages and a lack of respect for females in general, and non-Muslim girls in particular.

Ireland was only an example which I chose because of Jim.
The quoute from their embassy site indicaed a friendly relationship.
All the countries I mentioned are "neutral" and none would be on friendly termes with a state guilty of the crimes Jim and you ascribe to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:34 AM

Can I point out that it was not me that made this an issue - my oppinion of Keith is what it is and I believe it colours everything he says on the question of race.
This is why it became the issue that it did - from the horses mouth:
"Well, to tell the truth, Jim, as I have hinted before, I am not really following the thread that closely; but some questionable statement about what actually constitutes 'racism' and whether other sorts of hostility were the same thing or a discrete phenomenon, lured me back a few posts ago."
Keith's past record of racism will remain available as long as Mudcat archives these discussions.
His added hatred of Arabs is clear on this forum, as is his contempt for the fate of unarmed massacre and human rights abuse victims, whom he has referred to as "the enemy" and described their plight as "Another hyped up non-issue."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:29 AM

Not only 'florid', Don. It is not Jim's style, but his content that puts backs up. It is not mere 'floridity' constantly to fling accusations of racism, prejudice, bigotry &c, at those who have manifested no signs of any of these erroneous attitudes. It is a simply counterproductive form of abuse on his own part -- an admission that rational argument has failed so that he must fall back on the animadvertive shibboleths of the left to cover his inability to make an actual argumentative point of his own. I am sorry to say that frequently appears to me to be his technique; and if one points that out, one is abused in one's turn for 'defending' those whose views Jim, in his absolute conviction of his own unassailable rightness and morality, has, in his own eyes, so successfully demolished.

I am, as I have said before, constantly reminded of John Gross {I think it was} on the literary critical method of F R Leavis: "that faintly ridiculous air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted"; together with the apparent [might one almost say 'paranoid'?] conviction that any who do not share his doctrinaire views must be part of some totalitarian conspiracy against what is, to all right-thinking people, the undisputed "good".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:25 AM

""Many people in a position to know were linking the behaviour to aspects of culture.
They were mostly people from that culture.
No other explanation was forthcoming.
Why would anyone not believe them all, and how can it be construed as racist.""

Just one small point Keith, then this particular story is done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

You say that ""They were mostly people from that culture. No other explanation was forthcoming."", and for that reason you believed them. You were convinced of their veracity, yet when they said that no generalised conclusions about that culture should be drawn from their comments, you chose not to believe them.

What happened to change your mind about their veracity?

Was it perchance that the latter comment didn't fit in with what you wanted to believe?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 07:02 AM

""There was, after all, no compulsion on Jim to have contributed to that thread at all, was there? Yet he did so, in terms of at least qualified assent. I do not think either of you can deny that assertion.""

Absolutely not Mike.

You know that I have defended your right to answer questions just once, if you so choose, or not at all.

I can also sympathise with Jim, whose florid style tends to get peoples' backs up, which absolutely does not justify the way in which certain posters continually cast him in the mould of a bigot.

Simply put, he is passionate in his hatred of oppression in any form, and yes, his emotions colour much of what he says.

That doesn't mean that he isn't quite often corect in his opinions.

Nor does it make him (or me, for that matter) a bigot, racist, antisemite, or any other of the stock misnomers applied by the real bigots and racists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 06:51 AM

""Ireland for instance.
Did you even read the quote from their embassy web site?
Did you know they buy arms from Israel?
Jim should have a word with the government.""

One western nation which ""buys arms from Israel"" constitutes a good relationship and approval of all Israel's actions?

I DON'T THINK SO!!

All it shows is that one of the world's small number of neutral countries trades with Israel, which in no way is an endorsement of Israel's dealings with its neighbours.

Ireland doesn't take sides in any dispute! WHY?......Because it is a NEUTRAL country.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 05:04 AM

Al Whittle suggested I post this whenever you start.

'Jim, I fully accept that you think I am a racist, and as such worthy of abuse. This is something I dispute and is vehemently denied by several Mudcatters including some who have met me personally; my family; the members of my church, and my community.

That aside, these are some opinions I wish to express and some facts I wish to highlight and discuss on this forum.

Therefore can we take your opinion of me personally as a given, and have a debate as to what I have to say, nonetheless.'

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:57 AM

Whenever you are losing an argument you sometimes try and change the thread subject, but always make a personal attack on me bringing up this old issue.
You have hounded me with it from thread to thread for years now, making the same ugly accusations against me in front of my friends and other Mudcatters.

Many people in a position to know were linking the behaviour to aspects of culture.
They were mostly people from that culture.
No other explanation was forthcoming.
Why would anyone not believe them all, and how can it be construed as racist.

Drop this nasty nonsense and confine yourself to the subject under discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:17 AM

"I have never made a racist post or statement as you well know.
It is just a smokescreen you throw out when you are losing an argument."
Thanks for that - headache and cold almost gone but I appreciate a giggle at any time and a double one is doubly welcome.
"but there is no consensus against Israel among normal, intelligent informed people and their elected governments."
Whoops - I meant triple one -
You've seen and accepted as accurate how many vetoes the US have used to prevent normal, intelligent people and governments from expressing their views and taking action on Israel's terrorist behaviour. Why bother if the majority are already behind Israel (or do you only consider "normal and intelligent" to only refer to those (like your good self), who support Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes unquestioningly?
You have still failed to produce one single shred of evidence to back any of your claims, underlined by the fact that you still are not linking the vast majority of those claims and the ones you have linked are proof that you are ignoring or denying the evidence of everybody but Israel's - as you rightly said - there is nothing else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 05:47 PM

Keith, there are comparatively few well-informed people on this issue. Normalcy in these times might be construed as being sociopathic or psychotic. Elected leaders are politicians and have to pay the piper. They are lobbied by special interests such as AIPAC who spread their propaganda about Israel with impunity. The "loonies" as you put it are the ones who have decided that aggression and warfare are a solution to the Mid-East conflict. It's interesting that you bring up the Left-Wing as an epithet as if this was some legitimate argument in favor of supporting Israeli brutality by smearing those of a different political persuasion. This doesn't seem logical or convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 04:43 PM

"...but some questionable statement about what actually constitutes 'racism' and whether other sorts of hostility were the same thing or a discrete phenomenon, lured me back a few posts ago"
This gets more and more bizarre as it proceeds.
Stephen Lawrence was a Londoner - his parents were, I think, West Indian.
His case was dealt with and is still referred to as a racist attack - did the five thugs that killed him do so because they hated Londoners - or what?
He was stabbed to death because of his colour, maybe his attackers should have been accused of being 'colourists' - waddya think?
The police were investigated following the case and were found to be "institutionally racist", not because of their attitude to specific races but because of how they dealt with cases involving non-whites, non Brits... foreigners in general.
The law of "incitement to race hatred" covers Pakistanis, West Indians, Travellers.... whether they are true races or not - would anybody care to contradict this?
I will totally agree that the over-use and unfair application of the term 'racist' does devalue the coin, but I don't think that even Keith's best friend could accuse anybody of that here.
I am of the opinion that this is argument has been engineered to create a smoke-screen and present Keith with a 'get out of jail free' card, an opportunity he is more than ready to grasp with both hands, as displayed here.
Despite his nonsensical '"many Mudcatters" claim, as far as I am concerned anybody who states openly that "I firmly believe that all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted" to tend them towards having sex with underage girls, is guilty of one of the worst examples of incitement to race hatred that I have personally encountered in my lifetime - an entire gender of an entire ethnic community in one fell swoop.
To attempt to defend this by whatever means is to align yourself with it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:43 PM

Stringy, there are loony lefties in Ireland as everywhere else, but there is no consensus against Israel among normal, intelligent informed people and their elected governments.

Jim, I have never made a racist post or statement as you well know.
It is just a smokescreen you throw out when you are losing an argument.

On that thread three years ago, I just pointed out the obvious fact of the now universally accepted over-representation.
That is not racist.

I did not offer an explanation for it but pushed to express an opinion, I just said I believed the one put forward, mostly by members of the culture, in the absence of any other explanation.
That is not racist either.
Many other Mudcatters have tried to tell you that you are wrong about this.
Give it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:28 PM

There is no unanimity about Ireland receiving arms from Israel. The academic community is incensed by this and refuses to recognize Israeli academia as a result.

The fact that Irish leaders accept arms from Israel isolates Zionists as war merchants.
The only reason that this could take place is that there is pressure from the U.S. to
complete their hegemonic self interest and make more money for the arms dealers,
and reinforce the motives of the Pentagon. In the meantime, the people suffer by supporting these arms merchants by paying taxes to keep them in business.

Israel and the U.S. are the chief aggressors and destroyers of world peace with the
largest supplies of arms, including nuclear weaponry and their criticism of Iran
for developing its nuclear capabilities is hypocritical.

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the defenders of Israel's aggression and
oppression are being sold a bill of goods to make more money for the military industrial
complex. They believe the propaganda that is fed to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:10 PM

Well, to tell the truth, Jim, as I have hinted before, I am not really following the thread that closely; but some questionable statement about what actually constitutes 'racism' and whether other sorts of hostility were the same thing or a discrete phenomenon, lured me back a few posts ago. In general, it is all very predictable. I should have thought that you and Keith, and the other occasional interlopers like me and Don & Bruce & Stringsinger [who OP'd this one I think] & Bobad, could all predict what was going to be said next, and be a bit like the group in the old joke who tell jokes to one another just by shouting out numbers. I don't think my formulation 'The Keith & Carroll Show', is really all that inapposite, do you? All a bit 'mulberry-bush', in fact, isn't it? Honest now...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:53 PM

" a proposition to which, at the time, you expressed agreement "
And I have since had time and reason to reflect on my saytement over a couple of years and have come, largely through my encounters with Keith to realise that to couch my opposition in careful wording is to allow him to continue to use this forum as a racist - whoops, sorry,multiracist platform.
I believe you are using semantics to protect Keith from his own racism, and of late, his over-indulgence of the same.
I won't ask you for your opinion on his present performance but I would have thought......
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:44 PM

This is common knowledge all over the world and the countries you have cited, Keith, not all have good relations with Israel. That's not true.

Yes it is.
Ireland for instance.
Did you even read the quote from their embassy web site?
Did you know they buy arms from Israel?
Jim should have a word with the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:34 PM

Bobad and Keith, I understand your passionate defense of Israel but I think you both are
not serving your self interests by having the U.S. and the Israeli military complex hoodwink you with their propaganda. Both Israel and the U.S. are armed to the teeth and there are some who are getting wealthy at your expense. I don't like to see you buy into this deception.

The U.S. has supplied Israel with arms and they have a nuclear device that was aided by the U.S. This is common knowledge all over the world and the countries you have cited, Keith, not all have good relations with Israel. That's not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:36 PM

I have 'defended' nothing or no-one in particular during this current exchange, Jim; apart from myself over my attitude to certain terminology whose usage you accused me of being 'aware' of, to which I demonstrated that I had previously shown that I was 'aware' of nothing of the sort, but on the contrary disagreed basically with its assumptions; a proposition to which, at the time, you expressed agreement ~~ & it was, so, agreement, Don; however enthusiastic or otherwise, and however hedged about, it may have been. There was, after all, no compulsion on Jim to have contributed to that thread at all, was there? Yet he did so, in terms of at least qualified assent. I do not think either of you can deny that assertion.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:33 PM

Wow - what a foot-in-mouth!!
Of course that should mean MULTIRACISTS
Sincerest apologies to Keith for maligning his life-long dedication to his philosophy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:28 PM

Problem solved.

"Majority of the Pakistanis are classified as Caucasoids, while their are sizable minority of Capoids and Mongoloids. South Asia has had a history of migrations and invasions from different parts of the world leading to population exchange, which has blurred the lines of race.
In modern Pakistan, Ethnic groups are a measure of race more than the color of skin or eyebrow ridges. Some of the most prevalent ethnic groups in Pakistan are Punjabis (who are mixed), Pushtuns (who are majority Caucasians), Sindhis (who are mixed) and Baluch (who are majority Caucasians). Capoid groups include Brahui, while Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek groups are Mongoloids."

I solemnly declare that from now on I shall refer to Keith and his friends, whover they may be, as "multi-racialists"
Does that fit the bill
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:25 PM

""People do over-use the term racism, which, as you say, devalues the coin, but terms like 'PC' and 'nanny state' are equally overused as screens to hide a multitude of sins.""

Hardy unqualified agreement though Mike! In fact, heavily qualified and the reservations ar clear and honest, wouldn't you say?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:09 PM

"People do over-use the term racism, which, as you say, devalues the coin,"
It has been pointed out to me since (buried somewhere here) that it is common to describe sweeping generalisations about West Indians, Jews, Powell's "Rivers of Blood", colour bars, "No Traveller" signs, "Whites only".... as racist.
I accept that as a fact and it seems a piece of evasive spite to insist on - what, "anti-Pakistani-ism.....what?
I never thought you would sink as low as this to defend your approval of Keith's RACIST shite, seems I over-estimated you again.
Jim Carroll