 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 May 14 - 12:52 PM Most religions are also horrified by sex without a religious blessing. A fiend of mine recently caused much consternation amongst both Xtiam and Muslim attendees at a particular gathering by asking "Don't you try a dress on before you buy it?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 May 14 - 06:32 PM "I hoped you might have something new, but no." Not discredited - denied by you and the Israeli regime, You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to back your stupid claims that Israel wasn't guilty for the massacre - before, during and after the documented facts You are no different to Irving an his crowd denying the Holocaust didn't happen. God (if there is one) protect us all from religious hypocrites Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 May 14 - 04:22 AM a single shred of evidence to back your stupid claims that Israel wasn't guilty for the massacre Strange that not one single decent government blames them for it then. They accept indirect responsibility as the authority at the time. They accept that the commander should have anticipated something, and acted sooner, but they are not guilty of any massacre. All the massacres in those camps, including this the only one you care about, were committed by other Arabs as is the the appalling suffering now of the Palestinian refugees in Syrian camps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 14 - 04:53 AM Don't be stupid Keith They were foud guilty by independent enquiries - Sharon was indicted as a war criminal and then was elected prime minister, totally implicating Israel in his crimes Who gives a toss what the same Governments who did nothing about Britains and the US's illegal incursion to Iraq thought - they're all a bunch of self-serving politicicians JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE ELECTRONIC INTAFADA HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH NOAM CHOMSKY How many more of these Anti-Semitic opinions do you want? You are still Mudcat's own version of David Irving Christian - sure you are!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 May 14 - 04:58 AM They were foud guilty by independent enquiries Really? Which? - Sharon was indicted as a war criminal No he was not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 14 - 06:42 AM Piss off Keiyh Done and dusted You have the rerports You have the facts You will continue to support War crimes You will continue to support the sale of weapons and equipment to terrorist states such as Syrian, Libya Bahrain... You will continue to be a reactionary, right-extremist holocaust denier That's waht you do and that's what you and yours are known for ]Say a prayer for the rest of us Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 May 14 - 07:34 AM You have the rerports You have the facts Yes. Israel was indirectly responsible. No-one was "indicted as a war criminal." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 23 May 14 - 08:15 AM "To prevent future Boko Harams, American Muslims must speak out forcefully against their radical coreligionists—and the media must cover it." How We Stop the Next Boko Haram |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Greg F. Date: 23 May 14 - 08:16 AM Israel was indirectly responsible. Only indirectly responsible? Oh, well, that's all right then, eh FW? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 May 14 - 09:52 AM Not all right Greg. They are shamed by it, but they did not "facilitate" it and were not "indicted" for any "war crime." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: GUEST,Musket Date: 23 May 14 - 11:06 AM Are you going to make all Catholics speak out against paedophiles within the clergy Bobad? What the flying fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that an American citizen whose grandparents came from Malaysia has to denounce tribal Aftican terrorists in order to keep your bigotry sated? Perhaps all Jewish Americans should apologise for Israeli atrocities or get all American drivers to apologise for Australian drink drivers with trucks. I assume the point of such an exercise will to be if Christian Americans see Muslim Americans as being normal people ? Why else ? What has Boko Harem to do with normal people who happen to be religious ? Should all Christians denounce African terrorists too just to be safe? Just because religion is psychopathology on a nutshell, don't confuse terrorists using religion with people who happen to have religion. The poor buggers have enough confusion in their lives without being persecuted by people of a slightly different cult. Land of the free. Keep banging the rocks together. We'll send a few spy planes over Dumbfuckistan to keep an eye on y'all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 14 - 12:49 PM "They are shamed by it, but they did not "facilitate" it and were not "indicted" for any "war crime."" No - he wasn't - the US made sure of that, but all the enquiries and the eye-witnesses implicated Israel fully in the massacre - you have the facts, you choose to ignore them again. More war crimes to deny Jim Carroll GENOCIDE WAR CRIMES AMNESTY ACCUSES ISRAEL ATROCITIES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 May 14 - 02:35 PM Your first link is to Russia Today, and its about a "tribunal" run in Kuala Lumpa as some rich man's hobby. Are you serious Jim?! Your second link is a Guardian headline about "possible war crimes" but there is no text and there are no war crimes. Your third link is Amnesty accusing Israeli forces of brutality, but less than all its Arab neighbours. Your last link is to Electronic Intifada, an anti-Isreal hate propaganda site. The clue is in the name! Nothing to challenge in any way any of the points I just made about one of the massacres at the Lebanese camp which you made an issue of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 23 May 14 - 05:48 PM May 22, 2014 Six Scenes of My Interactions with Muslims: The Good, the (Mostly) Bad, and the Ugly I'm an equal opportunity critic of religions. But when it comes to human rights, I'm far more concerned about Islam. by Herb Silverman "I'm a liberal, but not a knee-jerk one. I'm an atheist, but not one who thinks all religions are equally problematic or that they should be judged by the violent behavior of religious extremists. I think the Bible and Quran both contain ridiculous passages and reasonable passages. Religious fundamentalists can quote portions of their holy books to justify loving their neighbor or killing their (infidel) neighbor. But at the risk of being called Islamophobic, I think Islam is the worst and most dangerous religion by all human rights standards." Read More Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, author of "Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt," and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Greg F. Date: 23 May 14 - 06:18 PM If Muslims want their religion to be viewed more favorably, they must forcefully and publicly condemn without qualification any violent strain of Islam regardless of what the Quran says. We've neen here before, Boo- I expect the Muslims will do so just so soon as the "Christians"[sic] forcefully and publicly condemn without qualification the fundagelical loonies, the murderers of abortion doctors, the Timothy McVeigh type bombers & etc. etc. I won't hold my breath, tho. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 23 May 14 - 07:24 PM He, he.....like clockwork. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jeri Date: 23 May 14 - 07:46 PM The Daily Beast thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably". People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way. Enough Muslim religious leaders and average folks spoke out after the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists, and those determined to be stupid remained stupid. "Stupid" doesn't respect facts or honesty. Now I have to go back to the Daily Beast, because the article "Muppets And The Politicos Who Love Them" sounds fascinating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 23 May 14 - 09:24 PM Leila Hatami, acclaimed Iranian actress and the first Iranian woman to sit on the jury of the Cannes film festival was denounced as a sinner by hardliners and targeted by a petition that she be sentenced to one to ten years imprisonment and flogging for pecking the octogenarian festival director Gilles Jacob on the cheek. The Daily Beast the site that thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 May 14 - 02:21 AM Faith. The art of believing what cannot be proven. I'm sure most American Muslims will happily apologise. Apologise for fellow Americans that is. I watched Billy Connolly's two part documentary on death the other week. It included an Islamic funeral service in a town, I think in California but I may be wrong (tell you what, I'll say it definitely was, then Keith will find out where and correct me) and two things occurred to me. 1. It gave free services for those families who could not afford a funeral. 2. Many families using their services weren't Muslim, including some poor Jewish families. This multi denominational approach and community feel brings out the best in The USA, whilst the loud mouthed idiots show decent people in a bad light. I think the inference was that only Christians carried rich v poor to the grave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM "Are you serious Jim?!" Who do you people think you are? You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit. Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals... Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it. Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes. Who the **** do you thing you are? Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them. The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all. If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this Jim Carroll HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH This from the Guardian - in full: By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014 Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic". Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years. The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life." In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011. "The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International. Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate. Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights." The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check". Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy. "The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy. Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after. An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM "Are you serious Jim?!" Who do you people think you are? You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit. Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals... Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it. Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes. Who the **** do you thing you are? Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them. The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all. If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this Jim Carroll HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH This from the Guardian - in full: By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014 Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic". Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years. The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life." In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011. "The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International. Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate. Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights." The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check". Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy. "The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy. Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after. An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 05:12 AM The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported Really? Where, apart from Russia Today? I have no "case" about Sabra-Shatilla except that Israel's version stands up to scrutiny and should not be dismissed. Reputable "eye witnesses" tell lies about Israel. Remember those good nurses on the Mamara who "saw" Israelis throwing bodies into the sea, yet every single person on the ship was subsequently accounted for. There were no bodies. I doubt the nurses made the story up. The activists gave it them. That is what they do, and the gullible saps like you lap it all up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 05:16 AM The Irish government are not "puppet politicians" of some global Zionist conspiracy. Nor are the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,................. They are well informed, and not taken in by all the lies and propaganda like you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 06:24 AM You have been give all this before - you choose to ignore it. You have just been give a load more - you choose to ignore that. Amnnesty, Human rights Watch, on the spot reports - all ignored. The huge researched document on Sabra/Shatila - ignored. You have never responded to accusations of Israeli terrorism with anything other than Israel's denials. Moving Bedouins about like pawns - they have no right to live on lands they have occupied for decades. onto a toxic site - it wasn't toxic Chemical weapons - not chemical Inequalities in Israel - non existent, despite masses of research, including the definitive 'Inequality Report', which was so definitive you claimed it was too much to be expected to read. You have lied and distorted your way though all these arguments and you dare call those who don't believe you "gullible saps" You are not even good at this. Your arguments are totally void of all humanity and logic Christian my arse Where is your evidence for any of this shit? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 06:46 AM Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it. Instead of just responding to that you now want to restart the debates about Bedouin and all the other propaganda that has been shown up for what it is so many times. Amnesty has criticised most countries, and Israel's neighbours much more than Israel, but if we must discuss Israel let's do one issue at a time. Israel was only indirectly responsible for that massacre. No-one was "indicted as a war criminal" as you claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 24 May 14 - 07:23 AM "People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way." I don't see anyone here demonizing an entire religion. What I see being demonized are those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion and their defenders who apparently are unable to distinguish between the two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 May 14 - 07:50 AM As Bobad says... ... and are also unable to distinguish between religions who are benign, even tho as absurd as all religions are, and those whose activities are based on violent proselytisation and a definded mission to wage war, whether literally or merely ideologically, on all others. Islam is one of the foremost examples of this latter type; and its real adherents would, & indeed do, despise any who claimed to be their co-religionists who asserted otherwise. So to refuse to distinguish between religions, as eg Musket self-glories in doing, as equally ridiculous, without taking into account their various stances with regard to missionising, proselytisation, opposition to the rights of expression or practice of other religions, literal application in today's world of the more extreme injunctions of the original founders [stonings, death for apostasy, floggings for adultery, which means any sex SFAICS] -- such denials of any distinctions constitute, I say again, the thoughts & actions of fools. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: bobad Date: 24 May 14 - 08:06 AM And besides, there are those among us who consider all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 08:32 AM "Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it." It is disputed by Israel alone - it has transpired since that America was implicated in it, and politicians have not commented on it or way or another - just followed America in giving their blanket support for Israel in whatever they do. US INVOLVEMENT America has found it necessary to used its UN veto over 100 times to prevent condemnation of Israel - their position in doing so has made them no different from the Russian and Chinese support of Assad - six of one, half a dozen of the other. Nobody gives a toss what politicians do - it is totally out of our control and they speak for nobody but themselves and their personal interests. Only you choose to hide behind them - as you chose to hide behind "experts" and "historians" in the past. Israel has been condemned throughout the world by independent Human Rights and War Crimes investigators - that is what matters, not the Freemason-like bunch of politicians. "all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization." Get it right fellers - when religion is left as a matter of personal choice it is as harmless as a belife in the Little People - it is those that would use those beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jew... who are in need of demonisation Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 09:03 AM It is disputed by Israel alone No. The Irish government do believe it either. Nor do the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,................. Now please, if we must discuss Israel yet again, can we deal with one issue at a time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 09:07 AM a belife in the Little People Musket believes in the Little People, but he thinks they are of no consequence. (Whither England thread.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 09:57 AM "The Irish government do believe it either." No they don't, but if they did, so ******* what? Answer the statements that have been by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch - or maybe the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Oly an Establishment arse-licker moron would hide behind politicians nowadays - they are all a bunch of self-serving crooks. The Irish Government for Christ's sake - we've just had another minister forced to resign and he has been forced to hand his now illegal retirement kick-back to charity. They are all crooks - if crooked politicians and culprits claiming their innocence is your best shot, you have nothing None of them have expressed support for Israeli atrocities - if they have - where? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Musket Date: 24 May 14 - 10:06 AM Sorry Michael, I can't hear you above the noise. OY! JIM! KEITH! KEEP THE BLOODY NOISE DOWN. I CANT HEAR MICHAEL GET HIS ARSE ROUND HIS TIT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 10:18 AM Ireland's current relations with Israel Alan Shatter is the minister who has just been forced to resign, incidentally Jim Carroll "2000s[edit] In 2003, the Irish government opposed the building of Israel's security wall in the West Bank. According to WikiLeaks, following the 2006 Lebanon War, Ireland prevented the United States from moving military equipment destined for Israel through Shannon Airport.[9] 2010s[edit] On 19 January 2010, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh a senior Hamas military commander was assassinated in Dubai by a team of eight suspected Mossad officers who used counterfeit European passports, including Irish passports.[10] The Irish government responded by expelling a staff member of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin.[11] Ireland subsequently delayed an EU-Israel agreement which would involve allowing Israel to access sensitive information on EU citizens, and demanded that Israel tighten its data protection laws.[12] On 5 June 2010, an Irish humanitarian aid vessel MV Rachel Corrie heading for Gaza, was intercepted and seized by the Israeli Navy.[13] This caused political tension between Ireland and Israel.[14] [15] On 25 January 2011, Ireland upgraded the Palestinian envoy in Ireland to that of a full embassy which resulted in the Irish Ambassador to Israel being summoned. Israel announced that it "regrets" the decision.[16] On 4 November 2011, the Irish ship MV Saoirse carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza was intercepted by the Israeli Navy in international waters. The Navy boarded the ship, took those aboard in custody and towed it to Ashdod. In response, Irish Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore stated that the Irish government do "not agree with [the Gaza blockade], (...) regard it as contrary to international humanitarian law in its impact on the civilian population of Gaza, and (...) have repeatedly urged Israel to end a policy which is unjust, counter-productive and amounts to collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians."[17] On 16 November 2011, unnamed sources from the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed that "Ireland (is the) most hostile country in Europe" and was "pushing all of Europe's countries to a radical and uncompromising approach". An unnamed official argued that "the Irish government is feeding its people with anti-Israel hatred" and that "what we are seeing here is clear anti-Semitism." An official from the Irish Foreign Affairs Department announced that "the Government is critical of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. It is not hostile to Israel and it is clearly wrong to suggest as much," he said. "The notion that this Government is or would be trying to stoke up anti-Israeli feeling is untrue. We are not hostile to Israel. We are critical of policies, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories. These are not the same things".[18] Israel's ambassador to Ireland was reported as distancing himself from claims of Irish anti-Semitism.[19] In early 2012 the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a "cultural boycott" of Israel, as a result of which Irish music group Dervish (band) cancelled a proposed tour of Israel, citing "an "avalanche of negativity" and "venom" directed towards them." [20] This online campaign was officially condemned by Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter [21] and Irish Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore [22] In 2013, Alan Shatter, minister of Justice, Equality and Defense said, while visiting Israel, that "Ireland is a friend of Israel. We have a government in Ireland that wants a deeper engagement. But we also have a government in Ireland that is committed to the peace process."[23] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 May 14 - 10:56 AM No reason why you should hear me, Ian. I wasn't talking to you, just ABOUT you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 11:00 AM No accusations there about Israel massacring refugees. If Israel did such a thing, decent countries like Ireland would shun them, but they don't because it is bollocks. They do criticise Israel's policy over Gaza, and the fence, but they do not accuse of massacres or war crimes because they know it is bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 11:01 AM Politicians supporting Israel Jim Carroll Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States. Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 May 14 - 12:21 PM Jim -- Would you please tell us a. the date of this Resolution you cite and b. its precise wording [or, if very lengthy, a reasonable digest of its purpose]? Without this info one sees no significance in the figures you quote whatseover. Thank you ···· ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 May 14 - 12:29 PM Not, mind, that I can see what point you are making here, thruout. Denunciations of Israel are often deserved and all very well; but we have had, and have one ongoing at this very moment, innumerable threads on the topic. What the hell do you reckon it has to do with the avowed subject of this thread, for which cast your eyes ½" upwards? Drift is sometimes entertaining, and where would we all be without that incomparable ongoingoingoingoing Keith'n'Carroll Show!!!!! But now & then, as here, a drift into somebody's obsessive King·Charles·Head ultimately just becomes tiresome. So could we maybe get off Israel and on to Islamic Radicalism? Maybe? Just for a bit? Pretty Please! Oh, go on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 14 - 12:49 PM The resolution was TO ACCORD PALESTINE NON-MEMBER OBSERVER STATE' STATUS IN UNITED NATIONS You kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it. It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments. If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 01:33 PM " it was disputed and that no democracy believes it." It was disputed by Israel - you have produced no other evidence of anybody else supporting it. The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) December 2012 - easily traceable. You might try this for an international view of the Middle East situation WORLD PUBLIC OPINION "that no democracy believes it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 01:44 PM Whoops - (sorry again Mike) What tou appeart t be saying is that none of the politicians believe it - the war crimes and human rights organisations throughout the world have condemned it - you have been given the evidence for this over and over again and have chosen to ignore it and hide behind the opinions of self-serving countries like Britain, who followed the US into an illegal war, and is little more than their gofer. You have still to produce a single shred of evidence of anybody actually supporting the massacre, and it turns out that even the Yanks were conned into believing the lies - you've had that fact too "...the date of this Resolution you cite...." 6th Nov 2012 Easly traceable. You might try this for how the world views Israel http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 03:12 PM TWO JEWISH ANTI-SEMITES (no doubt!!) (including a 'lying'Jewish nurse) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 14 - 03:22 PM "If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere." Not fucking thread drift again Keith Whenever oyu get into trouble - out comes the blue pencil Will you never learn Keith - we discuss whatever we wish around these subjects - you have no authority here - stop manipulating discussion Just a reminder - your mentor introduced Israel into this discusssion half a lifetime ago and it has been mentioned 177 times to date - it's a little obvious to wait till now to cry 'foul' You really are a ham-fisted censor Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 May 14 - 01:12 AM Oh, come on Jim, don't be so touchy & so disingenuous. Thread drift is thread drift: & altho we all sometimes follow a train of thought which momentarily throws a thread off-track, that is not the same as doing what you are so clearly doing here, which is deliberately to introduce a vaguely related topic which is a well-known obsession of your own with the obvious purpose of hijacking the thread so that you can obsessively rehearse it for the n℔ time, knowing that Keith will rise to it & the Show will again run&run. Now for crying out loud stop going on about The Iniquities Of Israel, which are only marginally related to the avowed topic of this thread, & take your anti-Is stuff, if you must, to the BDS thread. I am not trying to 'censor' you or whevs; merely requesting you to act with reasonable courtesy to let others get on with this thread, which is on a topic just as significant to some as the misdeeds of Israel are to the all-important J Carroll. I am thanking you... Best Regards ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 May 14 - 02:50 AM "Thread drift is thread drift" Wha.....? My comment is addressed at Keith's attempts to once again steer the discussion away from the awkward bits and into his comfort zone - it has been his regular practice as long as I have had anything to do with him on this forum His statement "It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments. If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere." I have become extremely tired of his arrogant proprietorial behaviour and have warned him about it on numerous occasions. As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors go wherever the contributors choose to take them, and whoever attempts to prevent them from doing so is indulging in censorship. I would be extremely disappointed to learn that you were supporting him in his efforts. Examples of Zionist, Christian, Buddhist, Bush Baptist... whatever fundamentalism will, and should be part of all these discussion, which are essentially about the misuse of religions for other purposes. Much of the problems of Muslim fundamentalism today rise directly from the problems of the Middle East, and ring-fencing Israel as a no-go area in these discussions is to exclude a major player in the conflict. A massacre of 3,500 unarmed Muslim refugees by a different sect of Muslims, facilitated by a Zionist influenced state is an example of religious fundamentalism gone viral. That massacre, along with Keith's blanket support for its facilitators, is perfectly valid for discussion here. Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road. He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 May 14 - 03:10 AM Sorry, Jim; but I think you are plain wrong in this instance. It is not "censorship", nor is it "arrogant[ly] proprietorial", to request the courtesy of sticking substantially to the point in a thread, rather than hijacking it to ride a hobby-horse that one [ie you in this instance] has ridden to death in umpteen posts elsewhere, and where there are plenty of other places to continue to exercise it if you really insist on persisting in it. This thread is not about Israel, except by a most marginal train of thought; but plenty of others are; and these would be the places to go on making these points of yours: thus letting those who want to discuss "Islamic radicalism..." (quite large & significant enough a topic to be permitted to proceed without obsessive irrelevancies, or at best marginalities, obstructing the process) to get on with doing so. So just, if you would be so good, stop being so insufferably patronising with your "Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road. He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better" and just stick to the point at issue in the thread. Thanks again... ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: GUEST,Musket Date: 25 May 14 - 03:38 AM I never said I was trying to talk to you Michael. I just couldn't hear the entertaining waffle you were coming out with. Mind you, from time to time it isn't so much entertaining as disturbing. Are you REALLY circumspect regarding any Muslim you come across in case they have a relative with a rucksack? Presumably you clench your sphincter if you come across an Irishman in case his uncle is a priest. Or even worse, a Christianist radical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 May 14 - 04:00 AM No need to be "circumspect", Musket. Never suggested I was. I simply made the point that, becoz one person, of any demographic, may be a nice guy, it doesn't follow that they all are -- whether they happen to be related or not. I think you are over-labouring this perfectly simple point. Jim, following your kind permission, in your assertion that "As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them", I would like to take this opportunity right here & now to offer ❤iest congratulations to my team, Arsenal, on winning the FA Cup. If I had the energy, I would now proceed, by your kind & emphatic leave, to add this statement to every thread on the forum! I would add that Zoe Wanamaker is my favourite actress, while I am about it. Anyone else got any more mnemonic irrelevancies to contribute, according to this now explicitly formulated Jim·Carroll·Principle of anything goes and to hell with the integrity of the thread? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . . From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 May 14 - 04:06 AM You, Keith, Boo-Boo and Brucie have all made a point of targeting Muslims on this forum - you have all studiously avoided the fact that Islamic radicalism is an example of a religious extremism that has occurred at one time or other in one form or another, wherever any particular religion has gained political influence, and is still a factor in connection with the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist religions today. Keith in particular has gone to racist and cultural extremes to attack on single religion, while, at the same time defending the behaviour of a State that declares itself Jewish and has resorted to military aggression atrocities to expand the boundaries of that State. He has also attempted to absolve his own claimed religion (I've never met a Christian so devoid of humanity as he appears to be) from any wrongdoings, declaring that the abuses that are happening in Christian countries have nothing to do with religion. Between you, you are attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not. Islamic radicalism is a part of a larger picture, much of which has nothing to do with religion anyway. Unless we are allowed to discuss it in its full context, we are only left to shake our heads in disapproval of the behaviour of one religion and ignore that of all the others. Israel irrelevant to religious fundamentalism - you have to be joking. Sabra/Shatila remains one of the most horrendous examples of an atrocity committed by a state acting in the name of religion, certainly in my lifetime - and Israel can chalk up a number of other examples of such atrocities to its (credit?). If I am being patronising, perhaps you aren't the intelligent and principled individual I've come to regard you as - I stand corrected. Jim Carroll |