BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 01:06 PM

You have persistently claimed that Israel's terrorist activity has had the support of "Democratic Governments"
Would you mind providing some actual examples please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:30 AM

"Not by any democratic government."
You mean "not by any poodle politician" - surely?
Apart from the U.S's veto, and Britain's lickspittle silence - do you have any examples of open support for Israel's massacres, military incursions, use of chemical weapons, ghettoisation, Nazi-like humiliation and attempted starvation into submission of the Palestinian people, or the attempts to drive the Bedouins of off their lands and rehouse them on toxic rubbish dumps in order to create a "Jews only" State - or is this, just like your mythical historians "All in the mind, you know?".
What support the Israelis have is one of inaction - just like Assad's Syria
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:26 AM

Teribus ~~ You still seem to think that "journalist" only means "reporter". Rubbish. All those who write for, or administer, the press are journalists. Reporter is just one of the dozens of different jobs that journalists do. If you can't use terminology precisely, you can't expect any of your arguments to convince anyone.

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such; merely with semantic accuracy. From the junior trainee on the local paper to the Editor-in-Chief of Times newspapers, they are all journalists, and you are simply pissing down the wind to try and deny it in order to make inaccurate and unconvincing debating points.

Jim: I wasn't accusing you of any such false distinctions. Teribus is the one making them.

A pity, Teribus, because in general in this thread you have IMO rather more of the right of it that JC, but are doing yourself no favours by undermining your own arguments with this inaccurate semantic stupidity.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:21 AM

Israel's continuing military incursion has now reached toe proportions of ethnic cleansing

??

and is widely recognised as the establishment of an apartheid state.

Not by any democratic government.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:50 AM

"The Jewish population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine accepted it"
With misgivings - the Arabs rejected it, as they had every right to do. giving the circumstances.
Israeli 'freedom fighters' went about clearing Arab homes with hand-grenades while the embarkation ships were leaving port.
As I said, Britain left Palestine in a state of turmoil, as they did with many of their former possessions
Their departure from Palestine was not unlike that of the Yanks scrambling for the helicopters on the roof of the Saigon embassy - the stuff epics are made of!
To attempt to accept territories gained by force of arms is to write in generations of warfare.
Israel's continuing military incursion has now reached toe proportions of ethnic cleansing and is widely recognised as the establishment of an apartheid state.
]I have no doubt that you, as a wannaba military man regard that as acceptable - the civilised world doesn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:17 AM

Actually the deal on the table in 1947 was the two-state solution proposed by the United Nations - nothing whatsoever to do with your favourite cartoon baddies (The Brits) at all. The Jewish population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine accepted it but the Arab population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine rejected it and opted to go to war instead - they lost. As the Arabs of Palestine did not accept the 1947 borders as proposed there have never been any established two-state boundaries so all the crap about Jews stealing land is just that - CRAP.

By the way if any have right to the land due to occupation over millenia then that would be the Jews.

If the Arabs of Palestine especially those represented by Hamas in Gaza think that it is OK to take and hold land by conquest then Christmas old son what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

They tried in 1948 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1956 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1967 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1973 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

Israel has made peace with Egypt and that peace has held - all Egyptian land occupied by Israel returned.

Israel has made peace with Jordan and that peace has held - all land formerly part of the Mandated Territory of Palestine and occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 (West Bank and East Jerusalem) relinquished by Jordan.

2005 - Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip and handed it over to the Arabs of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 09:51 AM

mull

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

"1947 - They were offered peace"...... yaddada, yadda, yaddada.
The voice of Imperialism rides again
They were given S.F.A. that they weren't already entitled to by right of the fact that they had occupied the land for generations -millenia in fact.
The Empire partitioned the territory without obtaining satisfactory agreement from either side, pissed off (to the sound of gunfire and grenade explosions and left the occupants to sort out a mess centuries caused by Imperial exploitation - as it did all over the globe.
The world is still trying to cope with that mess
Formerly Rule Britannia (as usual)
You make returning property to its rightful owners sound like Fatherr Christmas coming down the chimney
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:02 AM

"Well, Teribus, your rant on Hamas, ironically, displays the very reason why sensible talks (by sensible I mean meaningful) are urgent and vital, and that will not happen until the US imposes strict conditionality on its military aid to Israel. I believe that, once that is done, Hamas will readily agree to cease hostilities (don't you think that their accommodation with Fatah is a bit more than baby steps in the right direction?) and that meaningful talks could take place.

Now exactly how would the USA imposing conditions on its military aid to Israel (Which by the way I think you exaggerate the importance of) prompt Hamas to cease hostilities against Israel? I mean they have "ceased" hostilities many times in the past only to resume them whenever a suitable target of opportunity comes along (What was the deal they signed up to when Israel withdrew from Gaza again Steve? Did Hamas live up to their end of the bargain?)

The Hamas "accommodation" with Fatah. Does that extend to Hamas allowing Fatah candidates to stand for election in Gaza? Their accommodation is borne from necessity and survival, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with any peace plan.

Until Hamas and Fatah both come out with the clear unequivocal statement supporting the right of existence for the Sovereign State of Israel and the right of its people to live their lives in peace free from attack or threat of attack there will never be any meaningful talks - Hamas in their charter state that such talks are a waste of time now that is hardly Israel's fault is it?

By the way why has it got to be the USA imposing conditions on Israel, why not the International Community imposing conditions on how the Palestinians spend the millions they receive in aid?

"Meaningful in this context means that each side has a lot to lose by failing to compromise."

Care to tell me what either Hamas or Fatah have compromised on?

"At present, the Israel regime never has anything to lose no matter how horridly it behaves. I have little time for Hamas, who are indeed an obstacle to peace, but far greater obstacles are the theft of the best Palestinian land, Israel's legendary murderous bellicosity and the repression of Palestinian people in Gaza."

So far the Israelis have reached agreements with the Egyptians, the Jordanians and a sort of semi-agreement with the Palestinian Authority - all have held, all have been lived up to. Not however with Hamas, because Hamas seek Israel's destruction and they will never compromise on that aim - so yes Hamas ARE an obstacle to peace, they are the greatest obstacle to peace. When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza peace would have followed had Hamas done anything about the rocket attacks, they didn't and Israel, quite rightly reacted.

"The biggest of all obstacles to peace, though, are people like you and Netanyahu who have been duped into believing that there is no need to talk."

Not no need to talk, more like no point in talking to reach an agreement that will be ignored by one side.

1947 - They were offered peace and more land than they are arguing for now and they refused it.
1956 - They were offered peace and more land than they are arguing for now and they refused it.
1967 - They were offered peace and the land they are arguing for now and they refused it (The Three NO's of the Khartoum Declaration 1967 - "No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel")
1973 - Etc, etc., and on down to the present day.

They have had 67 years to sort this out - be done with it and next time let them fight it out to the finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

Did you know? My last post was number 911. Something for the paranoid fools to mill over.

I'm a journalist myself Michael in that I write for periodicals and journals (as well as penning some guidelines fodder.)

Mind you , I don't consider myself a journalist any more than I consider myself a porn star.

You can tell a journalist. They usually prop up the bar / smuggle cooking sherry whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Hack spotter Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

Wow. Your potted bio of Hastings gives me a right old stiffy. I reckon I'm about to fa i n ttt.....

How wonderful it must be to go through life assuming everybody you come into contact with has your own limitations in analysing and questioning people who must be good cos they've been on the telly.

Who indeed am I to question eminent people. Perhaps because I can't see the aura of eminence surrounding their egos.

zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:35 AM

Mike - overlooked your postings
"What on earth makes either of you imagine that "journalist" is exclusively synonymous with "reporter"
I don't believe I ever described Hastings as a "reporter", nor do I believe it to be a derogatory term, though it has been debased by some of that trade - particularly by those who work for the rag in question.
My only point was that if "real historians" are the only ones permissible in these discussion, then that must be applied to all and not used to debunk or exclude information, as it all-too-often is by our usual suspect.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:24 AM

"Sir Max Hastings HAS NEVER worked for the Daily Mail bum-fodder as a JOURNALIST"
So what - he describes himself as a journalis and is present writing for the Daily Mail - semantic juggling.
His historical qualifications do not meet those that Keith demand for the rest of us, therefore he does not qualify as a historian, though Keith based most of his case on his being so.
Shucks to you too.
"On WW1 there are no living historians who did disagree with me."
Arrogant nonsense - you haven't read any of those you quoted, so how on earth could you possibly know?
You based your entire case on a tiny handful of out-of-contest cut-'n-pastes, as you always do.
Throughout the discussion - and the one on the famine, you hid behind the reputations of "real qualified historians" without ever having read a single one of their books, which you admitted when challenged "I am no expert"
You don't read - you seek qualification for your jingoistic rubbish after you have propounded it.
"He is not himself a contributor to this foolish introspective forum and probably blissfully unaware of its very existence."
Sorry - I responded to the holier-than-thou stance of the posting, which I read in passing, because I believe it represents much of the trouble in the Middle East and elsewhere - "my religion is more important than yours".
No religion can claim clean hands when it comes to interference in medical matters - the Christian church least of all.
Every year thousands of families are forced to ship their daughters to the UK for pregnancy terminations they cannot obtain legally in Ireland due to primitive, religion-based laws.
Last year the government to re-think an age-old religious-based law forbidding life saving operations - this following the death of a young woman due to an unviable pregnancy
Politicians who voted for the changes in the law were threatened with excommunication.
Such operations are still illegal in cases involving rape.
The height of "barbarism" was reached some time ago when the staff of a Christian-run South American hospital hid the pregnancy of an 11-year-old daughter of a family of itinerant agricultural labourers who had been raped by a local farmer, made pregnant and given two sexually transmitted diseases.
The staff admitted that the girls age and her condition would inevitably lead to her death had the pregnancy been allowed to go through, but they deliberately suppressed the fact that the girl was pregnant until it was too late for her to obtain a termination legally.
On appealing to the local bishop, they were told that that "the girl should embrace her martyrdom with pride".
Religion and medicine is just as toxic a mix as with politics.
Damn them all.
By the way - I am not in a rush to be a "reliable commentator" on anything - I am as anxious as I always have been that this forum is not used by racists, sectarians and other examples of the detritus of society as a platform for hate - nothing more.
There is nothing introspective about any of this - holy wars, whichever product-brand of superstition they are fought for, concern us all and are a threat to all our futures.
Taking sides only heightens that threat.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:09 AM

MtheGM

A Journalist/Reporter - reports news and covers events for a newspaper in order to inform the public and is supposed to leave his/her own bias and beliefs out of the piece reporting it impartially, objectively and factually as accurately as possible.

Editors or Columnists on the other hand are free to declare their bias and write articles accordingly - they are not reporting on anything they are providing comment on something someone else has reported on events in the news.

I believe that the lines have converged and merged so as to become almost indistinct over the past few years but the distinction should hold good for anyone reading and editorial piece, a column in which the bias of the columnist is well known and when reading news of a breaking story.

You seeing no difference at all sums up why anyone with any sense at all should never ever talk to the Press - today their stories are written long before the set out from their offices, they are not interested in finding out facts, their only interest is in the harvesting of sound-bites which when they re-emerge are usually taken out of context and misquoted - a Profession it bloody well isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:05 AM

Dearest little Stevie: oh, welcome back. I began to think you had gone away, young fellow, leaving me bereft of all those good guffaws you had been affording me. But you were just off getting on with this gr8 'life' of yours. Well, enjoy. & thanks for latest lot of laughs.

But enuff awready. No more of your posts will be read by me. As I said above to that other sillibugga

"Rejoin if you like. Or not. Up to you --

but I hereby announce that no more answers will be forthcoming from me to your pathetically petty provocations."

So adieu; with best regards, natch --

~M~

Oh: nearly forgot. Happy 63-years-young in 12 days time. But no malt from me, I fear. I gave up all alcohol 12 years ago, & life really is much nicer without, so I don't propose to encourage any young person in bibulous ways. So if you have any sense, you will seize tho occasion to do likewise & celebrate the occasion with sparkling mineral water: really much nicer...

Teeheeheehee: in my dreams, you compulsive young toper you...

Now -- back once more to those Islamic Rads, yes???

Silly man. You will read my posts and you will respond. You'll probably even respond to this one. You appear to think that piling post upon brainless post of this ilk will distract from the initial sore point, which is that you called a man who is nothing of the sort antisemitic.

I might add that there is nothing compulsive about my "toping", that your alcohol withdrawal is your private affair and does not qualify you to prescribe it for me or for anyone else. I could feel the need to stoop to your level by suggesting that a couple of pints might sweeten you recent distemper, but I won't. And call "Islamic Rads" what they are, and avoid the broad brush of prejudice, eh? There are plenty of people of Islamic persuasion who are embarrassed and mortified by the the behaviour of an unrepresentative tiny minority among their number.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:52 AM

Well, Teribus, your rant on Hamas, ironically, displays the very reason why sensible talks (by sensible I mean meaningful) are urgent and vital, and that will not happen until the US imposes strict conditionality on its military aid to Israel. I believe that, once that is done, Hamas will readily agree to cease hostilities (don't you think that their accommodation with Fatah is a bit more than baby steps in the right direction?) and that meaningful talks could take place. Meaningful in this context means that each side has a lot to lose by failing to compromise. At present, the Israel regime never has anything to lose no matter how horridly it behaves. I have little time for Hamas, who are indeed an obstacle to peace, but far greater obstacles are the theft of the best Palestinian land, Israel's legendary murderous bellicosity and the repression of Palestinian people in Gaza. The biggest of all obstacles to peace, though, are people like you and Netanyahu who have been duped into believing that there is no need to talk. Long live the pro-Israel lobby, eh? No talking means more killing. Churchill knew that. He wasn't my type but I thought he might be more yours.

Or, maybe, if Michael is Bibi's great uncle, you're Bibi's uncle.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:50 AM

As a Life Associate of the Freelance division of the Institute of Journalists, I feel qualified to contribute to this ill-tempered and ill-informed exchange. Anyone who writes for the press regularly and professionally, whether as a full or part-time occupation, in any capacity and not just that of 'reporter' [which I have never worked as -- I was exclusively a critic and feature writer] is a Journalist. What on earth makes either of you imagine that "journalist" is exclusively synonymous with "reporter"? The term "journalist" certainly subsumes "reporter", but not exclusively: it means that everyone who contributes, or processes [eg the editor, department editors, subeditors &c] written copy to the press. Any one of them will be a Journalist, qualified for membership of the NUJ if full-time, or the IoJ if part-time but with other commitments (my erstwhile situation). Just remember what the "J" stands for in those abbreviations, and stop being so silly as to argue that anyone is not a "journalist", but is only a "columnist". A columnist is a journalist. So Sir Max is, at that, currently a Daily Mail journalist; even if not employed fulltime on the paper as a reporter.

This was a silly piece of drift. Take my {longtime IoJ-member's} word for it, you would both do well do drop it.

~M~
Freelance Associate, Institute of Journalists

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:27 AM

Awww shucks Christmas I'll spell it out for you as you obviously have not bothered to read Sir Max's CV only the key words from it.

The career path of Sir Max Hastings:

1967 to 1982 - Journalist/Reporter - Foreign Correspondent working for both the BBC and the Evening Standard, awarded "Journalist of the year" in 1982

1980 - Historical Author Won the Somerset Maugham Award for non-fiction for book "Bomber Command". He also won the Yorkshire Post Book of the Year prize for both his historical works "Overlord" and "The Battle for the Falklands".

1982 to 1996 - Editor then Editor-in-Chief Daily Telegraph awarded Editor of the Year in 1988.

1996 to 2002 - Editor Evening Standard after which he retired.

2002 - Knighted (A means by which merit in terms of achievement, or service can be officially recognised)

2002 to 2007 - President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England

2010 - Received the Royal United Services Institute's Westminster Medal for his "lifelong contribution to military literature".

2012 - Awarded the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award, a "lifetime achievement award for military writing".

Enrolled as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and enrolled as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

In retirement Sir Max Hastings has worked occasionally as a COLUMNIST for the Daily Mail as well as for The Guardian, The Sunday Times and the New York Review of Books.

Now if you can read and understand all of that you will now know that counter to what you repeatedly claim:

Sir Max Hastings HAS NEVER worked for the Daily Mail as a JOURNALIST

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,for info
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:48 AM

Moreover if Mr Carol had read the Snopes piece as he should have done beofre rushing so stupidly to contradict Dr Eldaad he would know that the bits at the end of Eldad's piece were not his own but added on before posting by some ill wishing third party. Carol is in too much of a hurry to be a reliable comentater it would seem.

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

Hey "legend"

" GUEST,Musket - Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:07 AM"

Did it really take you over one hour to come up with that response??

Pathetic ain't the word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:31 AM

Wow Musket!! You've outdone yourself on Sir Max - The Royal Historical Society are according to you: "shallow fools......impressed with.....his prolific output".

You could, judged upon your own contributions to this forum, be rightly accused of many things Musket, but knowing anything about history isn't one of them. Oh, and on Sir Max Hastings, like Carroll, you too should look up the difference between a Journalist/Reporter and an Editor/Columnist.

While I disagree strongly with many of Hastings comments and much of his work - On the First World War he was bang on - and both yourself and Carroll were ripped to shit on the Christmas Truce Thread on the three key metrics for success introduced by Keith.

By the by Musket you are far from objective yourself and as I stated previously you seem to suffer from a chronic lack of perspective on just about every subject you select for "discussion".

Keith on the other hand does clearly identify the sources he quotes and introduces and in so doing clearly states that they are THEIR opinions NOT necessarily his. Unfortunately all you and Carroll ever do is read who posted and then launch into attacking the poster NOT the points introduced by him - the pair of you even have to resort to inventing things said by him to attack him on - It really is rather pathetic and frankly boring, apart from that it is completely pointless and spoils any thread where the pair of you indulge yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:21 AM

Keith has always rejected historians, who don't agree with him no matter how "well regarded"

Completely untrue, I reject none.
On WW1 there are no living historians who did disagree with me.

Musket, there is no historian who disparages Hastings like that, unless you are having delusions of historical importance again.

Steve, I have no opinion on whether the plot is real or not, but Andrew Gilligan in that Telegraph piece clearly does.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,for info
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:20 AM

You waste your breath responding to Dr Eldad. His was a piece I copied from online, deemed to be authentic -- see the snopes comment which folowed. He is not himself a contributor to this foolish introspective forum and probably blssfully unaware of its very existence.

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

"Sir Max Hastings IS regarded as being an eminent (albeit unqualified) historian"
Read what I have written
Keith has always rejected historians, who don't agree with him no matter how "well regarded" they are, yet holds up a Daily Mail journalist to make his case - can't have it both ways Terrytoon.
From Max Hastings' own C.V.
"Sir Max Hastings is an author, journalist and broadcaster whose work has appeared in every British national newspaper."
He appears not to know the difference between journalist and columnist as he describes himself as the former - nowhere does he claim to be a historian, no matter how others regard him.
I really don't care what you "believe"; you never offer anything more than flag-waving, bar-room type wannabe-militaristic opinions anyway.
I didn't and never do base my arguments on the 'reputation' of "historians" no matter how "eminent", I base my opinions on what I have read of their work.
In the case of the Famine, I presented series of facts - ethnic cleansing, "act of God", militarily defended full warehouses, food shipped out of Ireland throughout the starvation period, half a century of mass evictions, enforced emigration, inbuilt British hatred of the Irish.... you both chose not to respond to any of them with facts of your own - in most instances you both ignored them completely in spite of my requests for you to respond.
By the way - Coogan is regarded as a distinguished historian by many, though I have never made any great claims on his qualifications
I have never quoted Mitchel in anything I have written, other than to condemn his support for slavery in the American Civil War in an album note.
I have no knowledge of his reliability as a historian, never having read anything he has written on the subject.
As far as Keith, and, as far as I can judge, you are concerned, the "eminence" of whichever historian is of little import to either of you, he persistently admits he has never read a book on the subjects he fantasises about and relies entirely on cut-'n-pastes he hastily gathered after having made his jingoistic and flag-wagging Little Englander statements: you appear to be no different.
"Dr Arieh Eldad"
Was interested to read what you wrote - not unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses who staunchly refuse essential blood for life-saving operations, without family forgiveness - wonder if this falls within your description of "barbarism"?
Funny thing religion, which is why I don't subscribe to it.
Was fascinated by your summing up Israel's stance as a holy war "against barbarism" though - puts it all in proportion.
"Jim, once again you have made......"
No Keith, you have made it about you with your fanatical Islamophobic rantings.
And once again you duck out - showing that your "experts" and "historians" are basically figments of your own imagination created to win 'glittering prizes'.
No examples of 'cultural implants' again - other than those I provided
from extremist sites expressing views similar to your own - must dig out some more; it helps put you in context.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:07 AM

Most people either have one or are one.

It's ruddy huge. It's party piece is to pop up when at the table and nick a bun just like an elephant. It's that happens next that makes my eyes water. The beer belly could do with developing to be fair. It just isn't big enough.

Still, better than being a bit of a cock eh?

Don't get me too excited, I tend to pass out.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:53 AM

Tell Mr Shaw exactly what any, blinkered or otherwise, Israeli Administration has "to negotiate with the newly-united Palestinian factions? Recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist perhaps? Recognition of the right of the citizens of the State of Israel to life their lives in peace free from threat of attack?

Perhaps Mr. Shaw you could give us the Hamas view point on those issues.

1: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

2: "Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry:

0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18). - excerpt from Article 7 of Hamas Charter 1988

3: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day or Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari'a(20), and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection." - excerpt from Article 11 of Hamas Charter 1988

Comment: As it would appear to be perfectly acceptable in the minds of Hamas for Islam to take land by force, then they can hardly deny the same right to others - True?? - They could of course just be proven hypocrites.

4: "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement [Referring to HAMAS here Steve]. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

5: "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time(27), an exercise in futility."

So tell me Steve what are they going to negotiate?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:20 AM

I'd look up the word irony if I were you Terribleus.

There aren't many (any?) ways of drilling reason into Keith's thick skull and my hypothetical one professor reflects Keith's continual habit of saying subjective opinion is undeniable truth.

It's his infantile immature stupidity I was getting at, not any opinion on Max Hastings. For the record Hastings is a revisionist who writes history to suit his views in the same way he did as a newspaper editor. It reads well and I can see how shallow fools are impressed with it but his prolific output doesn't reflect thougt out reasoning in my humble opinion. He begins with a hypothesis and sets out to justify it. Not objective history accounting in my book.

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

"Size 13 shoes, 6'4", beer gut to be proud of and a humongous great willy." - {description of Musket by himself}"

On the "willy" thing - if the rest is true how do you know? When was the last time you saw it?

Are you paid by the word Ian - must be as your self-penned description could have been shortened to either of the following - BFF or more appropriately BFC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:35 AM

"Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian" [Keith]

That might have been acceptable if you had, in your turn not dismissed all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian" as you have persistently done on that and every other thread.
Hist on your own petard somewhat, I'd say.

MAX HASTING IS A DAILY MAIL JOURNALIST AND YOU HAVE JUST LIED (AGAIN) WHEN YOU WROTE "I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."

I repeat, Max Hasting is a Daily Mail journalist - he has no qualifications as a historian." - Christmas

A few of points with regard to the above:

1: Sir Max Hastings IS regarded as being an eminent (albeit unqualified) historian, evidenced by the awards and reviews his work has received from eminent qualified historians and by the fact that those same eminent qualified historians invited him to become a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

2: I do not believe that Keith did dismiss "all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian"[sic]". I believe that on the "Potato Blight" Thread he dismissed quite correctly some of those you put up as "qualified historians" (Tim Pat Coogan and John Mitchel being but two of them - neither of course are considered by "qualified historians" as being either eminent or "qualified").

3: Sir Max Hastings is NOT a Daily Mail journalist - before leaping to contradict that statement I would direct you to look up the difference between being a journalist and a columnist.

As for this from Musket

"Max Hastings is regarded as a bit of a cunt by one professor.

Kind of blows a hole in your priggish crap, doesn't it?"

Kind of demonstrates your total lack of perspective, while at the same time making a complete and utter c**t of yourself Ian (LIOL & Bar).

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 12:51 AM

Dearest little Stevie: oh, welcome back. I began to think you had gone away, young fellow, leaving me bereft of all those good guffaws you had been affording me. But you were just off getting on with this gr8 'life' of yours. Well, enjoy. & thanks for latest lot of laughs.

But enuff awready. No more of your posts will be read by me. As I said above to that other sillibugga

"Rejoin if you like. Or not. Up to you --

but I hereby announce that no more answers will be forthcoming from me to your pathetically petty provocations."

So adieu; with best regards, natch --

~M~

Oh: nearly forgot. Happy 63-years-young in 12 days time. But no malt from me, I fear. I gave up all alcohol 12 years ago, & life really is much nicer without, so I don't propose to encourage any young person in bibulous ways. So if you have any sense, you will seize tho occasion to do likewise & celebrate the occasion with sparkling mineral water: really much nicer...

Teeheeheehee: in my dreams, you compulsive young toper you...

Now -- back once more to those Islamic Rads, yes???

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:12 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/israel/eldad.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:37 PM

Well, Doctor Eldad, persuade your blinkered administration to negotiate with the newly-united Palestinian factions instead of going down the depressingly-predictable path of "not talking to anyone with Hamas on board". One day you will talk whether you like it or not, and the sooner you start the fewer of your citizens, not to speak of the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, will be killed or hurt. Your government will always find a way of not talking, because they don't have to, thanks to US bankrolling of your military. Quite a few of us in the west hope against hope that that invidious situation will not go on forever. Your people and the people in the occupied territories all deserve peace, prosperity and security, so do try to stop arguing against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:25 PM

I only come here once a day as I have a life, so it takes me a while to catch up (I must be mad). So five points.

(1) There is no Birmingham plot. Keith appears to be the only person on the planet who still thinks so, but that is because it suits his purpose for there to have been a plot.

(2) Very entertaining, Michael. I can't make my mind up whether (a) you've lost it, (b) you are indulging in some warped sort of humour, or (c), you have made a complete twat of yourself in front of everyone without realising it. You do sound very upset (all those posts with afterthought after afterthought...), but, if so, that's your own doing. Take a break.

(3) I am 62 years 11 months 18 days and 15 and a half hours old. Paypal me thirty quid for a bottle of Talisker on my birthday, y'all (preferably individually, not collectively, you tight gits), on June 15, please.

(4) You do not have to have been a victim of the vile persecution of the Jews, or be in the family of such victims, to get your head around what antisemitism means. Why I should have to make this elementary point to allegedly sentient grown-ups is utterly beyond me.

(5) The word "holocaust" is increasingly, and rightly, becoming almost exclusively associated with that horrible phase of history, and the only correct rendering of the term in that context is "the Holocaust".    To omit the capital H is regarded as a serious insult, and carelessness is simply no excuse. Speaks volumes about your pretentious and sanctimonious nonsense on this and just about every other topic, Keith, that you should respond with your lame-duck excuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:40 PM

Max Hastings is regarded as a bit of a cunt by one professor.

Kind of blows a hole in your priggish crap, doesn't it?

He writes as if he is being paid per word rather than by fact.

Luckily Keith, as far as those charged with dealing with reality are concerned, your day dreams and impressionable faith in fools put you firmly in the camp of your little people as you call them.

What ho !

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:26 PM

Islamism in Birmingham schools.
"One of the schools concerned, Adderley, has released an official statement confirming that its head, a moderate Muslim, and other heads have been subjected to "malicious and targeted campaigns to remove them." Given all this, there can't really now be any dispute that a plot exists.

But the Beeb's(BBC) record on the story has been mixed. It has done some real reporting on it – that is, making the effort, like us, to gather actual evidence of its own. But on other occasions it's been too ready to take at face value the obviously self-serving denials of obviously interested parties – such as governors of the schools concerned, or in this case Birmingham City Council.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100270920/islamism-in-birmingham-schools-how-the-bbc-is-selectively-reporting-the-trojan-horse-plot/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,For info
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 05:32 PM

By Dr. Arieh Eldad an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel


I was instrumental in establishing the "Israeli National Skin Bank", which
is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every
day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in
Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who
was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned
her.

Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are
suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was
successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and
discharged to return to Gaza .

She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in
Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.
She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where
they saved her life.

It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would
forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of
Israel . It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational
conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.
I have never written before asking everyone to please forward onwards so
that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits
the world if it is not stopped.

Dr Arieh Eldad

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:08 PM

Jim, once again you have made me the subject of the thread, reopening long dead discussions.
You are obsessed.
Discuss the issues not me please.

All your claims are false and I would be happy to rubbish them by pm, or if you must, on a dedicated thread that all normal people can avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 03:26 PM

http://www.maxhastings.com/category/books/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 02:59 PM

Sincere apologies Keith – one "expert" does back up your claim.
UNDERAGE SEX SLAVERY IN BRITAIN

GAVIN BOBY
Have a good night - say a prayer for us all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 01:49 PM

"The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture."
I never referred to any Pakistani - in three years you have not produced one single person making a claim culturally smearing an entire culture.
Have anybody holding office or in the public eye done so, they would be facing charges of incitement to racily hatred - or are you still claiming that Britain has no laws protecting ethnic minorities from racial abuse - is it so racially extreme without the help of the BNP and Ukip?
Still no evidence - no links - no statements - nothing other than your disgusting claim - lies, total lies.
You are still free to provide statements and links, of course - I look forward to the humiliation
"Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian"
That might have been acceptable if you had, in your turn not dismissed all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian" as you have persistently done on that and every other thread.
Hist on your own petard somewhat, I'd say.
MAX HASTING IS A DAILY MAIL JOURNALIST AND YOU HAVE JUST LIED (AGAIN) WHEN YOU WROTE "I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."
I repeat, Max Hasting is a Daily Mail journalist - he has no qualifications as a historian.
"Completely untrue."
No it isn't - you claimed to have checked most of them, - you hadn't, and you defended them as true.
More lies - what did I say?
This wouldn't be half the fun it is if you weren't so arrogant, so dishonest and you didn't try to make each subject a point-winning competition.
Your declarations of infallibility and your repeated prat-falls are nearly a substitute for your nausing up thread aftre thread, ther way you do.
Keep it up - it's the nearest thing I'll ever come to a blood-sport.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:45 PM

I wish it covered mocking people for their age and infirmity.

What about mocking people for their stupidity and idiocy?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:59 AM

And here we are once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:49 AM

Jim, Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian by such as BBC, Guardian, other historians, so you view of him does not count for much.
He was only one of many historians I referred to anyway.

The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture.

You strenuously defended three pages of invention by Muslim Watch (hundreds of unqualified claims) put up by Boo Boo

Completely untrue.
I said I did not trust it and took the trouble to check the entries.
I was just being honest that I could not find a single fault.
Nor could anyone else including YOU Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:40 AM

Keith
You produced an obscure group of idealists in order to back up your claim that it was permissible to sell Assad riot equipment and arms - you have a very convenient short memory.
"The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture."
You have never produced a single statement resembling your obscene suggestion, and you never will - feel free to do so now.
You even went as far to debasing the country you claim to love by suggesting that British laws would allow such a horrendously racist statement from a public figure.
"I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."
Max Hastings is a non qualified 'Historian' who writes for the Daily Mail
You dismissed all information give to you and insisted he was the "expert" we should accept for no other reason that you claimed (not having read anything he had written) that he supported your jingoism.
"I have never used any "Muslim Watch" site, "
You strenuously defended three pages of invention by Muslim Watch (hundreds of unqualified claims) put up by Boo Boo
"Christine Kinealy is an eminent historian who we both quoted."
You quoted her as saying Britain was not to blame for the outcome of the Famine - as with your 'Muslim implant' claim - it was your own invention.
You developed a technique of hiding behind 'experts' and have consistently admitted that you have ever read any of them, or any others on any of the subjects you have pontificated on.
Next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:38 AM

Editorial Policy.
" We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks."

I wish it covered mocking people for their age and infirmity.
Allowing it does not make our forum a nicer place.
It probably never occurred to the administrators that anyone would do such a thing.
Such things never used to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:18 AM

"Prejudiced abuse and mocking of age, infirmity and disability should be dealt with as forcefully as racism,IMO, FWIW."

i.e. ignored?

No change required then.

To refer to your own comments about persecution, apples & pomegranates.

You guys do love to fawn on the ones with brains, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:04 AM

Jim, I do not remember the tree huggers but I certainly would never describe such folk as expert on anything.

The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture.
They blamed the offending on aspects of it.

I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything.

I have never used any "Muslim Watch" site, but the list you claim came from there contained no errors that any of us including YOU could find.

Christine Kinealy is an eminent historian who we both quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:55 AM

"Islamist radicalism is a demonstrable threat to the current commonweal, or none of the things from 9/11 to the caning of the unmarried mother in Nigeria to the murder of Fusilier Rigby would have happened. If we are not to single out any sort of specified entity for any sort of comment, than what is the point of this forum at all?"

I can't argue with more than the detail of that, any more than you can logically claim that Western interventionism has had any less of an horrific effect upon their countries, from the 1920s right up to now. Of course there have been many other instances since the birth of Christianity, of Islam being (unsuccessfully) targetted for extermination.

If you constantly visit upon others, invasions, pogroms and actions which lead to their deaths in thousands, what do you expect might be the result?

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Bible: Galatians VI)

The atheist philosopher George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (The Life of Reason (1905-1906)).

That much misattributed quote is something that every Western and every Christian nation should examine in its every detail and nuance, before deciding to let the world look after itself, back off and mind its own cabbage patch, so as not to invite further hostility.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:51 AM

"So Jim, name one historian I have cited who was not an eminent, professional historian, or one person I have cited as an expert who was not."
The Australian tree-huggers association, or whatever they call themselves, who told you it was OK to sell weapons and rit control gear to Assad
The team of "experts" who you claim said that "All male Pakistanis were implanted to have it off with underage girls" - still never produced
The Daily Mail Journalist who said World War One was a glorious enterprise to which a generation of young men went willingly to be slaughtered in the mud.
The Muslim Watch thread which you dedicated yourself to claiming that their masses of racist propaganda was true beyond all doubt.
Not forgetting Christine Kenneally, who you swore, supported your view of The Irish Famine, but turned out to be saying exactly the opposite.
to name a few.
Have you ever though of entering your writings for the Booker Prize for fiction - I'm sure you'd do well
All together now, "lies, all lies I tell you"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:15 AM

So Musket, when you spoke disparagingly of "little people of no consequence" you were referring to their stature?