BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:42 PM

... and the next thread is called "Jokes in the worst possible taste"

There is a God!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:28 PM

If you mean me there, Jim -- no I don't. See the Israel thread. Boy, don't it ever add to the gaiety of nations,eh Jim?, to drivel just what you like on a thread, relevant or not, and then assert that nobody is going to tell you you can't.

Thank you so much for the idea and the shining example!!!!

<C A R R Y O N C A R R O L L !!!!!!!

"He's all right!"

"Who's all right?"

~~~~~~~JJJIIIMMM   CCCAAARRROOOLLL~~~~~~~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:16 PM

"Never been a single one! "
Atrocity denier

Ditto

Ditto

Ditto

Why on arth are you discussing Israel on a thread about Muslim atrocities
Thought you and your mate disapproved of that sort of thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 11:25 AM

<<<[quote Teribus]"Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise."

Emotive twaddle if Israel wasn't threatened and attacked none of the above would have occurred.[/unquote]>>>

So, minnow of the lazy one-liner, would you care to separate out from the above for me which bits you regard as the lies and the dissembling? I'll admit that the "one fine day" bit is my fervent hope, but all the rest is factual. One fine day we'll see something from you that has actual substance, as opposed to a "yeah, me too, fellow backwoodsman" or a huge quote from somewhere else with little or no input from you, or a single-sentence "you're wrong, you Israel-hater, and you're a prick".

You lazy git.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:50 AM

without threat of massacres,

Done.
Never been a single one!

chemical weapons attacks,

Done.
Never been a single one!

blockages

?

and Nazi-like humiliation

Shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:40 AM

"They recognise the State of Israel, "
They can only expect recognition when they recognise the right of the indigenous people of Palestine to live unmolested and without threat of massacres, chemical weapons attacks, blockages and Nazi-like humiliation
The state of Israel came into being to the sound of Arab homes being cleared by hand grenades.
"They recognise its right to exist. "
When they recognise the rights of others to exist.
"They recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack"
Vise versa
Israel is a wealthy, powerful State preying on a Third world,impoverished people.
HOW ISREAL DEALS WITH CRITICISM

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:29 AM

You might call it emotive twaddle Teribus but I call it lying and dissembling in order to demonize and delegitimize a people - more in tune with the intentions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:50 AM

You indicate that this is unreasonable to ask of them- WHY?????

No I didn't. I disagree with their (Hamas, to be more precise than you) stance vehemently. I take it you can read...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:48 AM

Well you spent a long time on that. I've made my points, some of which you've twisted round and others which you have bounced off tangentially. I try to see the whole picture here, you see half of it. I have no truck with Hamas, I've called their manifesto for the destruction of Israel nonsensical and a stance that I utterly oppose (I serially disappoint some of my supposed allies by saying that, here and on other forums, but hey). I've said they are an obstacle to peace, I have bemoaned their hubris. I think you might have missed those bits. However, you will see just what you want to see, that's clear. I'm afraid I won't be doing a Jim to your Keith. Let your constant harking back to history (your version only, natch) be your refuge. 'Tain't mine. Someone has to do something.

Are you Bibi's brother?

Revisionism note: so it was schoolteachers, who infamously caved in (still do) at every pay and conditions negotiation, and who lost five days' holiday under Thatcher, who sent the nation to the dogs, eh? Not Maggie then? Well, thanks for betraying your true colours, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:35 AM

Steve,

Please let us know WHICH of the following you consider to be too much of a burden upon the Palestinians:

1. They recognise the State of Israel,

2. They recognise its right to exist.

3. They recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack.



You indicate that this is unreasonable to ask of them- WHY?????

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM

Still dodging the questions that you have been asked Steve.

1: "You want all the compromise to come from the side"

Ehmmmm No Steve compromise involves both parties in any negotiation. I now repeart:

"The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss."


2: "which is having its best land stolen by a neighbour"

What land is being stolen? From whom? As far as Hamas goes that "neighbour" has in fact given them the territory they now govern - Gaza - Initially stolen from the mandated territory of Palestine by the Egyptians in 1948 and occupied by them until 1967. The Israelis handed the land over to the Palestinians in 2005.

As for the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they had been taken by force of arms from the Mandated Territory of Palestine by Jordan and occupied by them until 1967. The Jordanians relinquished any illegitimate claim they had on those territories in 1988.

Under the terms of the original mandate for the territory of Palestine Jews can settle anywhere within its borders. No defined borders exist for any two-state solution as the only offer ever made, the UN-1947 Plan, was rejected by the Arabs and never put into practice or effect.

3: "....from the side which routinely has about a hundred times more of its citizens killed by said neighbour, from the side whose people are regarded as second-class citizens in said neighbour's territory, from the side whose communities have been divided by an apartheid wall and which has a million and a half of its citizens held under impoverishment and siege by said neighbour (who thinks nothing of routinely violating its territory, trying to prevent its elections and arbitrarily threatening to withhold rightful tax receipts)."

Tell me how many "Palestinians" did the Israelis kill today? Now ask yourself that question every day. You will find that the answer to that question will consistently be zero until the day the next attack is launched against Israel from inside Gaza.

Your so-called apartheid wall was built to save lives and guess what it has, both Israeli and Arab lives.   

4: "The reason there can be no meaningful talks under present circumstances is nothing to do with Hamas and Israel's constant grandstanding about them."

What present circumstances are you referring to? Any part at all attributed to Hamas refusing point blank to recognise the State of Israel? Tell me Mr. Shaw how exactly do you negotiate and carry on a meaningful dialogue with someone who does not recognise you? At the end of such discussions anything that you think they have agreed to is immaterial because to them YOU do not exist.

5: "It is because Israel simply does not have to talk.

That will remain to be the case until all "Palestinians" recognise the the State of Israel's right to exist.


6: "Even if Hamas were a bunch of cuddly kittens, Israel would still not be talking about handing land back, and you know it."

What land has Israel got to hand back to Hamas? Rhetorical question the answer is none. Israel did a deal with Hamas in unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace - The Israelis lived up to their part of the deal - Hamas failed to live up to theirs - documented fact. Par for the course though.

Israel did land for peace deals with Egypt and with Jordan - Both were successful. King Hussain of Jordan tried to help the "Palestinians" and the only thanks he got for it was an attempted take over of his country by the very people that he was trying to help - Again par for the course.

7: "Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise."

Emotive twaddle if Israel wasn't threatened and attacked none of the above would have occurred.

8: "For your information (again), I have no truck with Hamas and I utterly oppose anyone who calls for the destruction of Israel."

Then just for once let us hear you condemn them as roundly as you condemn Israel. Please treat us an example of your emotive twaddle wittering on about indiscriminate rocket attacks against unarmed civilians, about using "Palestinian" civilians and children as human shields, about placing command centres and ammunition dumps in schools and hospitals - But I do not think that I will hold my breath waiting for that to occur, because I know it won't happen.

9: "Hamas, unlike Israel, has much at stake. They will not call off their idiotic faux-campaign for the destruction of Israel because that would be defeat for them, but, stop the land thefts, lift the siege and they will talk, and the big wiping-off-the-map nonsense will quietly go away."

Ahhh so that is what it is about as far as you are concerned - a face saving exercise for the Hamas/Fatah leadership. Now you tell me, you have two people who have publicly stated that they are your sworn enemies and who you know to be armed, they ask to meet you but you must first come alone and unarmed to this meeting and stand naked in front of them - if you said that you would agree to go to that meeeting as instructed then I would call you the greatest fool in Christendom, and I would be right - that is what you are in effect asking Israel to do.


10: "I remember the inglorious 70s when I was one of them there trade union militants. We were always going on strike tomorrow unless we got fifteen percent. We always got about three and a half, and carried quietly on working."

Doesn't surprise me at all, but the end result was that you and your like aided and abetted in killing off British industry, and damned near succeeded in bringing the country to its knees.


11: "So people just carry on dying. Don't you think the people in the Middle East on all sides deserve a bit more imagination than that?

The people of the middle-east carry on dying because that is what their leaders demand of them in order to save face. The "leaders" and representatives of the Arabs of Palestine are the ones that lack imagination, their entire income of the "Palestinian State" is based on aid and they, the "leaders" are making fortunes out of it. More important as far as they are concerned they know that this gravy-train will continue just as long as they can keep "their people" in poverty in order to play the guilt-card and hold their begging bowls out to useful idiots such as yourself and to their guilt-ridden rich Arab neighbours.

The people of Palestine have had 67 years to sort this problem out - they have signally failed to do so - let them fight it out - it is the only solution now that they themselves will ever accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

"I have produced several."
You have produced none
You have claimed support for Israeli's role in the Sabra/Shatila massace - none whatever.
The blockade, the incursions, the use of chemical weapons, the Nazi-like humiliation of Palestinians, expansionism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing of Bedouins - please link us to examples of support of any of these.
Britain's greatest trading partner is China- does that imply support for her human rights record?
"Today, however, China and Britain enjoy a friendly, cooperative, and close relationship. China and Britain have established a full strategic partnership and close cooperation"
The US has vetoed over a 100 UN resolutions condemning Israel's behaviour - it has made it clear it will no longer do so
AN 'ANTI-SEMITIC' JEW'S VIEW OF ISRAEL
Jim Carroll
Whoops - right thread, I'm afraid!!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:31 AM

Problem is Steve, simple folk work on the basis that if you question their views, you obviously support whatever they are scared of.

Sophistication? You'd be better off trying to debate on The Daily M*il forums.

Jim. - Terribulus and poo bad may be in the same care home, but haven't been assessed as suitable for the communal lounge. Keith and Michael are deemed harmless as nobody actually listens to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:27 AM

Musket and Jim, is there no such thing as "Islamic Radicalism" or is it just not acceptable to discuss it?

And, why the need to ridicule?
Lack of any actual argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

Mr Shaw if you cannot tell me or anyone else for that matter what could be discussed at any "meaningful" talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority hotch-potch of Fatah and Hamas why not just say so.

If you cannot give any examples of what the Palestinian side of the equation has compromised on then why not just say that they have compromised on nothing.

The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss.

You call it an "equation"?? Gosh, there are none so blind...

Just read back what you typed here. You want all the compromise to come from the side which is having its best land stolen by a neighbour with a massive military bankrolled by the cowardly, AIPAC-led US, from the side which routinely has about a hundred times more of its citizens killed by said neighbour, from the side whose people are regarded as second-class citizens in said neighbour's territory, from the side whose communities have been divided by an apartheid wall and which has a million and a half of its citizens held under impoverishment and siege by said neighbour (who thinks nothing of routinely violating its territory, trying to prevent its elections and arbitrarily threatening to withhold rightful tax receipts). Your idea of compromise seems to be one side carrying on as normal with its illegal land thefts and bellicosity whilst the other is supposed to act like saints.

The reason there can be no meaningful talks under present circumstances is nothing to do with Hamas and Israel's constant grandstanding about them. It is because Israel simply does not have to talk. Even if Hamas were a bunch of cuddly kittens, Israel would still not be talking about handing land back, and you know it. Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise. For your information (again), I have no truck with Hamas and I utterly oppose anyone who calls for the destruction of Israel. Take off your own blinkers for a minute while you try to digest that, because it truly is not an inconsistency. Hamas, unlike Israel, has much at stake. They will not call off their idiotic faux-campaign for the destruction of Israel because that would be defeat for them, but, stop the land thefts, lift the siege and they will talk, and the big wiping-off-the-map nonsense will quietly go away. But that will never happen if your attitude prevails (which it is doing as things stand). I remember the inglorious 70s when I was one of them there trade union militants. We were always going on strike tomorrow unless we got fifteen percent. We always got about three and a half, and carried quietly on working. That's how it works. There was a lot at stake, like losing our wages for example. But you, why, you stand there, arms folded, eyes shut, head shaking, calling for complete capitulation of a hubris-ridden faction, knowing full well it won't happen. So people just carry on dying. Don't you think the people in the Middle East on all sides deserve a bit more imagination than that?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:56 AM

"sitting in adjoining wing back chairs"
Don't forget that good ol' boy Terminus, strutting his stuff in his TA uniform after closing time - I'm sure he would hate to be left out of your role-call of Maggie's Militants
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

"That Mr Iqbial from No.33. I reckon he doesn't have a TV licence. And with a name like that he's bound to have a nephew with a rucksack.

I don't know why they can't be like proper religions. You don't see priests brainwashing impressionable young boys. And Mossad never carry out state murder in other countries."

Is that good enough to join your self righteous club?

Michael and Keith seem to be sitting in adjoining wing back chairs. One muttering Noël Coward anecdotes whilst the other polishes the medals he got on eBay. That's fine till they get bored and wonder which sections of UK society to demonise next.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:25 AM

Kewith
You have persistently claimed that Israel's behaviour meets with the approval of the demacratic states, yet you have failed to produce one single item of that "approval".
Your only defences for Israel's terrorism has been their own denials and this mythical support
You have just been give half a dozen examples of world opposition to Israel, some from Israel itself.
Where is your evidence for this bloody nonsensical claim?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:19 AM

Mike
You are attempting to present Islam and Islam alone as the religion causing terrorism in the world today
Probably the greatest threat to world peace is nuclear-empowered Israel setting up a mono-religious state by force of arms.
Stop interfering with our discussing this - you are evry bit as bad (and moronic) as the other moron.
There are plenty of examples of religious atrocities - allow us them to discus them all in context
As I have constantly pointed out to Keith - you have no authority to restrict discussion on any topic to your own Islamophobic comfort-zone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:49 AM

Jim, it is not just trade.
Where are the governments who describe Israel as apartheid or criminal?
Nowhere in the world of democracy.
I will not discuss Israel here but post to the current Israel thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:42 AM

I am not doing so, Jim -- except within the parameters of this thread, whose topic it happens to be - look ☝☝☝☝. If you want a more generalised discussion of the iniquities of all religions, then start a thread on it [or refresh one of the dozens already lurking in the archives]; but why hijack a thread on a specific topic by overgeneralising it -- unless you can't bear the thought that the one which is the thread's topic might not be so very Persil·white·&·pure after all? I meanwhile would rather stick to the topic of this thread, which, as you might just have noticed, is one on which I happen to feel quite strongly. You might disagree with, or even deplore, these feelings of mine. But you are not going to counteract them simply by changing the subject!

Are you - Ummmmm!?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM

None of the states you have name have given one iota of support to Israel - you claim support fort their actions, not trading relations.
There is no support - only opposition, even from its greatest ally - The US.
Britain's greatest trading partner is China - shining example of human rights
You have been given examples of the democratic nations attitude to Israel.
Mike
Whya re you attempting to confine religious atrocities to one religion when they are common to all
Whateboutary my arse - all religions are capable of atrocities - it gores with the power.
"Thread drift" seems to be another nasty habit you've picker up from your better half.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM

Of course, intelligent people couldn't possibly debate Islamic radicalism without addressing Western moral intent, Israel and hypocrisy in other cults that point out the failings of Islamic belief.

But that isn't what this is about is it? Keith and Michael just want to list atrocities to persuade people to be circumspect over Muslims over here. Michael just pulled Keith up for straying from shock horror and Keith apologised.

Fuck me gently.

I'd up the dose , for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:59 AM

Oh dear. So much reality to hate and ridicule, it must be difficult to focus on one bogeyman at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:14 AM

Good point.
I will make this my last on Israel.

Australia.


The State of Israel is a robust parliamentary democracy.

Australia has warm and close relations with Israel, which are supported strongly by Australia's active Jewish community. The relationship has a strong historical dimension, dating back to the First World War when Australian forces fought in the region, including in modern-day Israel, alongside their Allied Counterparts against the Ottomans. Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:08 AM

Keith: Why are you arguing with Jim about Israel here? He is just trying to divert all our attention from what this thread is about, ie the iniquities of at least some elements of Islam [see my last post, 0408, & above ☝☝]; and you are just encouraging this tactic of his by rising to his irrelevant challenges. There are plenty of threads about Israel he could refresh or initiate; but he is trying for reasons best known to himself (but perhaps not too hard to guess at) to drift this one away from its true topic. Why not just let him get on with it if it makes him happy?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:04 AM

Canada.
Canada and Israel have strong, multidimensional bilateral relations, marked by close political, economic, social and cultural ties. Support for Israel, especially its right to live in peace and security with its neighbours, has been at the core of Canada's Middle East policy since 1948. The relationship has been strengthened in recent years as evidenced by increased cooperation in several areas, including public security, defence, trade and investment, and the increased frequency of ministerial visits. Canada and Israel marked 60 years of diplomatic relations on May 11, 2009. On this occasion, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated: "At the heart of relations between Canada and Israel is the dynamism of our shared communities. We look forward to the next 60 years and beyond."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:00 AM

Sweden and EU.
"Economic relations between Sweden and Israel are in a positive stage of development. Trade figures are up again and we see a clear increase in the numbers of business-related visits and inquires.
The Swedish Government actively promotes such contacts."

"Trade between Sweden and Israel is since 1995 undertaken within the framework of the association agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel.

The main features of the agreement include regular political dialogue, provisions on freedom of establishment and liberalization of services, the free movement of capital and competition rules, the strengthening of economic co-operation on the widest possible basis and co-operation on social matters, supplemented by cultural co-operation. The Agreement reinforces the arrangements for free trade in industrial products which have been in force since the late 1970s. "

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:48 AM

Ireland.
"Ireland and Israel are both modern, open, export orientated economies which benefit from highly educated and dynamic workforces. Israel is one of Ireland's largest trading partners in the Middle East, with visible trade amounting to a half a billion US dollars annually. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are strong commercial links across a wide range of business areas from software and the life sciences to education and food and drinks. "

"Irish culture – music, dance, literature, cinema, art - has always been very popular in Israel. The Embassy co-operates with a wide range of partners in developing its annual cultural programme. Some established highlights of the annual programme include the Irish Film and Irish Music Festival at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, the Irish Studies Seminar at Ben Gurion University, the Samuel Beckett Lecture at Tel Aviv University and a number of Bloomsday activities in June."

"The Embassy also has a new Deputy Head of Mission, Julian Clare. As we both settle in, deepen our understanding of Israel and build on the work of our predecessors in developing bilateral relations between Ireland and Israel diplomatically, economically and culturally"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:38 AM

You said Israel had the support of the democratic nations - where are your examples of that support - in your head, dining with your imaginary historians and 'experts, no doubt.

"Imaginary historians" ????
Why say that? They are quite real Jim.

Have you forgotten that I produced statements by various governments of their warm and friendly relationship with Israel, which they would not have with a state guilty of war crimes or apartheid.
It is all propaganda for the gullible.
Well informed governments know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:14 AM

Britain and the rest of the world did business with Apartheid South Africa throughout its existence.

"We stand here today to salute the United Nations Organization and its Member States, both singly and collectively, for joining forces with the masses of our people in a common struggle that has brought about our emancipation and pushed back the frontiers of racism."
South African President Nelson Mandela
Address to UN General Assembly
3 October 1994

1 April 1960 — The Security Council, in its first action on South Africa, adopted Resolution 134 deploring the policies and actions of the South African government in the wake of the killing of 69 peaceful African protesters in Sharpeville by the police on 21 March. The Council called upon the government to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.



2 April 1963 — First meeting of the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, It was later renamed the "Special Committee against Apartheid".



7 August 1963 — The Security Council adopted Resolution 181 calling upon all States to cease the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military vehicles to South Africa. The arms embargo was made mandatory on 4 November 1977

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:08 AM

Jim: I am as appalled as anyone by that terrible story about the grave in Tuam. Even more horrible than the Magdalene Laundries scandal and all the other well-known Irish Catholic abuse. But how being even more horrified by the far greater, both in nastiness & in number, abuses carried out in the name of Islamism is in any way incompatible with that, I can't see. Horrible indeed; but why instance it, except as a none-too-convincing exercise in whataboutery? I mean, this is

[look up there ☝☝]

a thread about Islamic radicalism. If you want a thread about iniquities committed by some Christians, there are plenty you could refresh, or you could start yet another. But what is the point of citing it here -- except to divert attention from what the thread is actually supposed to be about?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:59 AM

Mr Shaw if you cannot tell me or anyone else for that matter what could be discussed at any "meaningful" talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority hotch-potch of Fatah and Hamas why not just say so.

If you cannot give any examples of what the Palestinian side of the equation has compromised on then why not just say that they have compromised on nothing.

The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:48 AM

I meant NUJ, of course, not NUT. I must be NUTS!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:46 AM

I won't disagree with any of that, Teribus. But it's not a matter of what I "would like to use [a] generic term for"; & would just make the point that, whereas the National Union of Journalists {NUT}, which is the leading union for the profession, demands that the bulk of the member's time & earning power be spent in the pursuit of press employment in any capacity, not just reporting, the Institute of Journalists (IoJ), the one I belong to, does not, but simply demands to see a good body of work published in reputable journals; most of mine were in the Guardian and The Times, for which I was book/theatre/folk-music critic when I joined; but as my main earnings at the time were from teaching, I did not qualify for the NUT. Both, though, which is my point, have the word "Journalists" in their titles, and membership of each is recognised thruout the trade [if you don't like "profession"] as indicative of employability within it. So I return to my point that you are over-defining the word "journalist" within a narrow compass which does not subsume to any significant degree its true meaning. So how long it may be since Sir Max actually did any reporting is quite beside the point as to his being definable inter alia as a journalist.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:35 AM

Journalist does not come under the protected title legislation in The UK.   Press credentials may be required for access to certain places and information, but the title is a free one.

Michael has every right to call himself a journalist. If I were so minded, I could too.

There again, I told Keith I had decided to call myself a historian (I have written and had published a couple of potted histories, mainly around six sigma and how it was introduced and adapted, in order to inform future realisation, but there you go. I am a published historian.)

So... Using Keith's provisos;

I am living. I am most certainly eminent.

Check. Your move.

(Dunno about journalist though. Writing against deadlines is hard work and I am in the Douglas Adams camp in that regard.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:09 AM

HOW SOME CHRISTIANS TREAT 'SINNERS'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:03 AM

MtheGM:

1: Differnce between working as a Journalist and Writing Regular Articles

2: The following from Boston Globe:

"Frequently Asked Questions (Newspaper Definitions

What's the difference between a reporter, editor, and columnist?

A reporter gathers facts and information on an event of public interest and then presents them in a readable style to inform the reader. The reporter is supposed to provide objective observation about events that editors deem newsworthy. Reporters are often assigned to "beats," or particular areas, such as business, politics, energy, or education.

Sometimes reporters don't write the stories they cover. For example, a reporter at the scene of a story occasionally must dictate the material by telephone to another reporter who writes it in the newsroom to meet the deadline for the next day's issue.

An editor serves many functions. While specific responsibilities may differ according to title or newspaper, an editor may do one or more of the following: assign reporters, decide which news events to cover, edit (revise) reporters' stories, decide what stories get published, determine where each story will be placed in the paper, write headlines, and select photographs for the paper. At larger papers, each section (e.g., Business, Sports) has one or more editors responsible for the content of that section.

A columnist gives opinions, usually his or her own. A columnist is expected to gather accurate information, just as a reporter does, and then comment on that information. A columnist has more latitude and license than a reporter and is not constrained by the rule of impartiality that governs news writing. While they are subject to the editing and approval of one or more editors, columnists can write just about what they please, as long as it remains within the boundaries of good taste and public acceptability, as defined by the paper."

If you wish to use the generic term "Journalist" to cover every single person that works for a news organisation that is up to you. But it would appear that to call yourself a "journalist" and be a reporter you have to have some form of qualification, whereas to be a "columnist" you do not, therefore all reporters should be up in arms as all those unqualified bastards are lowering the standards and diminishing the status of the hard won qualifications of the reporters.

Long long time ago since Sir Max Hastings worked as a reporter.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:03 AM

"No decent nation would do business with an apartheid state."
Are you out of your mind
Britain and the rest of the world did business with Apartheid South Africa throughout its existence.
Britain and the US is selling arms to some of the most repressive states - that nice Mr Cable told us it was OK.
Business is business.
Are you totally out of your head
Even the US has finally turned on Israel for its outrageous contempt for human rights and international laws, despite having defended it for decades.
You said Israel had the support of the democratic nations - where are your examples of that support - in your head, dining with your imaginary historians and 'experts, no doubt.
IS THAT YOUR ONLY CASE FOR ISRAEL'S BEHAVIOUR (NOT FORGETTING THEIR OWN DENIALS OF THEIR CRIMES?
Jim Carroll


BBC POLL

CHRISTIANS

HAARETZ

UK

EUROPE

U S

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 01:18 AM

Terribulus, Boo Bad and the corporal sign writer from Oswestry.

They say there's one in every village. We appear to have a commune living in Mudcatville.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:14 PM

I do believe the Terrible Teribus is from the UK, Steve. But then, Fox "News"[sic] airs there as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM

Your understanding of context, minnow, is not mine. Michael called a non-antisemite an antisemite, I called him out on it, and he went all primadonna on us in about twelve silly posts (I haven't counted exactly). Michael has ceased to deal in objective facts in typical Islamophobe fashion (you should easily recognise the syndrome). Your own track record consists of defending the indefensible in one-liners. I try to actually argue points with people. It takes time, but at least I'm not lazy like you. The only posts of yours that go beyond about a line and a half are huge great quotes from some obscure source or other, typically unadorned by any context provided by you. Now, minnow, why don't you rejoin Teribus. He's watching Faux News too. Don't wanna miss stuff, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:33 PM

"I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

Exactly, Steve; got it in one.

And there you have it, folks. But at least he has the courage to admit it, whilst FW Keith does not."


Way to take a statement completely out of context and use it to disparage a poster. Doing so is despicable for anyone but has come to be expected from these two whose main contribution to this forum is the denigration of other posters. They think they are being so clever and pithy but the sad state of the BS section today is largely due to posters such as these.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:04 PM

I have generally taken Teribus to be a formidable right-winger of the worst sort, but now he also reveals his (or her? How would I know? Does sound testosterone-fuelled though...) revisionist credentials as well. Seems we can't talk about the here and now without his virulent harking back to the usual contentious interpretations of history. Well I'm not up for that game. So Israel reached accommodation with Jordan and Egypt, huh? Not sold out to the west, then, huh, and seen as superb bastions of democracy for decades? Seen Egypt today, Teribus, old son? That's what the long-suffering people of Egypt get for the selling-out by their stinking dictators to the west, the latter getting the yanks to prop up their dictatorial corruption for 40 years and ignoring their own people, innit. Trouble is, in spite of your sharp intellect you appear to have the typical yank Achilles heel (assuming you're a yank - how would I know, but you do act like one...) of having learned all you know from Fox News. I still reckon you could be Bibi's uncle. Or the Mudcat official AIPAC representative. What a waste of talent.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:33 PM

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

Exactly, Steve; got it in one.

And there you have it, folks. But at least he has the courage to admit it, whilst FW Keith does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:58 PM

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

You can say that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:37 PM

They are all in the UN Musket, and Europe is a continent, so membership is more to do with Geography than politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:16 PM

Ireland or? You could have just said Europe but I understand that your politics don't like to group countries as part of Europe.

No. None if the above deal with apartheid countries Keith. Apart from the apartheid ones with er.. oil, minerals or a Euro guilt trip that confuses a rogue state with a European ethnic demographic that is very close to historic memory now.

Just think Keith, once the last holocaust survivor is laid to rest, the revisionists can start rewriting that history as they started with WW1 after the last soldier died.

--------

So, which of your list aren't in The UN then?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

No decent nation would do business with an apartheid state.
So tell us Jim, Musket of any decent state that has sanctions or accuses them of apartheid.
Ireland or any European nation?
Scandinavian states?
Australia?
New Zealand?
Canada?
Name one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 01:15 PM

These democratic governments that don't exist Keith. Do they include the many democratic governments, ours amongst them, who agree to uphold and seek compliance with the many UN resolutions concerning the behaviour and criminal actions of Israel ?

You do come out with some rubbish, don't you?