BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 01:47 PM

Will get back Mike - missed your bit
Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories
"I said, "No decent democratic country holds Israel responsible for any atrocity or massacre."
That stands."
The fact that you prefer the word of self-serving politicians and nations that pour burning petrol on peasants, sell arms to despots, pay homage to feudal kings while his regime hands out 1000 lashes to dissidents, provides sniper bullets to murderers who send snipers to cut down mothers and babes-in-arms... rather than heed the word of independent makes you the THIS
that you are.
"Decent democratic countries" seem to have taken the place of "real historians" as a convenient way of avoiding facts - predictable, but non-the-less entertaining
Jim Carroll
   
Human Rights Concerns
Amnesty International's concerns are based on international standards and applied equally within the proper legal framework. The legal framework is defined by who retains jurisdiction, or effective control, over an area and the circumstances or situation at the time of the human rights violation. Amnesty's concerns within Israel-proper, the area inside the 1949 (W. Bank/E. Jerusalem) and 1951 (Gaza Strip) armistice lines (also called the '1967 borders') include but are not limited to, ill-treatment and torture of detainees, excessive use of force, the detention of conscientious objectors, and forced evictions and home demolitions within 'unrecognized' Bedouin villages.
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) is in its fifth decade and the undercurrent of violence and inherent abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law inherent in any long-standing military occupation is presented by both sides. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence in the region.
Human rights violations by Israeli forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) have included, but are not limited to, home demolitions and the forced eviction of Palestinian families; punitive arrests, unfair trials, ill-treatment and torture of detainees and the use of excessive or lethal force to subdue nonviolent demonstrations as well as the use of restrictive legal means. In contravention of international law, Israel continues to build parts of the wall/fence in the OPT, expand settlements and use draconian restrictions on the movement of Palestinians with some 600 roadblocks and checkpoints. Amnesty International is also concerned about discriminatory policies affecting access to water for Palestinians.
In areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, concerns include, but are not limited to, excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment, torture and the use of administrative detention to jail individuals without charge or trial. Some detainees also do not receive adequate medical attention.
A ceasefire between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip in effect since 2009 has been generally respected. The Gaza Strip has been under increasing restrictions since 2005, when Israel unilaterally pulled troops and settlers out of the strip. June 2007, restrictions tightened to an almost air-tight blockade, deepening the hardship there and virtually imprisoning the entire population of 1.6 million.
Israel maintains effective control over Gaza, controlling all but one of the crossings into the Gaza Strip, the airspace, territorial waters, telecommunications and the population registry which determines who is allowed to leave or enter Gaza. Therefore, Israel is still considered the occupying power and is responsible for the welfare of the inhabitants in the strip under international humanitarian law.
Israeli authorities rejected or delayed hundreds of permit applications to leave Gaza by Palestinians requiring specialist medical treatment; a few died as a result. Most of Gaza's inhabitants depend on international aid, which is severely hampered by the blockade. In May 2010, Israeli forces killed nine men aboard an aid flotilla in international waters that was challenging the blockade's legality.
Amnesty also has concerns about the indiscriminate rocket fire into southern Israel by armed Palestinian groups. Palestinian militants fired a rocket into Israel that hit a school bus, killing a 16 year old boy April 2011.
Following hostilities between Israel and the Gaza Strip Dec. 2008 - Jan. 2009, Hamas has failed to conduct any domestic investigation into the serious allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by their forces during the conflict and Israel's investigations have been inadequate - failing to meet international standards.
Political Situation

Prospects for a just and durable resolution to the conflict are remote despite the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized the State of Israel in 1988 and Israel allowed the Palestinian leadership to return to the Occupied Territories under the Oslo Accords in 1994. Israel continues to violate international law by expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority appears to have given up on direct negotiations, planning to go directly to the United Nations to seek official recognition of the State of Palestine within the '1967 borders' against the wishes of the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 12:57 PM

Jim: Questions put to you in my post of 1009, nearly 3 hrs ago, remain unanswered, altho you have visited the thread on 4 occasions since. I asked for clarification of some not entirely clear allegations regarding previous encounters between us, possibly in earlier threads (these accusations, I repeat, were not entirely comprehensible to me), and should really appreciate the courtesy of some further elucidation as to precisely wherein these claims resided.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 12:36 PM

Knocks Keith's "No decent democratic country" into a cocked hat

No it does not.

I said, "No decent democratic country holds Israel responsible for any atrocity or massacre."
That stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 12:10 PM

"For a start, I saw no excerpts"
In which case, they are unsubstantiated statements - though I'm sure you will now substantiate them or ignore the awkward ones.
Dealt with two - can't be arsed with the others - though a quick glance in the Independent article Stone draws from gives an interestingbit he left out "The UK government, also an ally of Israel, criticised the move and reiterated that the settlements were illegal under international law.

"The UK condemns the Government of Israel's decision of 30 January to publish new tenders for 450 settlement units in the West Bank of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK's position on Israeli settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law," Conservative Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood said in a statement.
"We urge the Government of Israel to reverse this decision. It is important to focus on steps that are conducive to peace.""
Knocks Keith's "No decent democratic country" into a cocked hat.
It would appear that many democracies support Israel like the rope supports a hanged man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 11:38 AM

For a start, I saw no excerpts

"    The green line was laid out in 1949 armistice agreements between the armies of Israel and its neighbours after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
   
    Israel has since breached these lines and it is now currently illegally occupying parts of the Palestinian territories."

-----------------------------------------------

"The Israeli government says it needs to occupy Palestine for security reasons, despite repeated resolutions from the United Nations calling for it to withdraw."

----------------------------------------------

"Israeli settlers have also been accused of violence against the existing inhabitants of the land they build on."

----------------------------------------------

"Last year Richard Falk, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused the Israeli government of "ethnic cleansing" by trying to replace Arab Palestinian populations in its territory with Jewish Israelis."

----------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 11:26 AM

TRY THIS, WHILE YOUR'E AT IT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 11:21 AM

HERE
HERE
HERE
HERE

How many more do you want?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

"Did Jon Stone write those excerpts cited?"
For a start, I saw no excerpts - only unsubstantiated one-line quotes, but let's look at a couple.

"Last year Richard Falk, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused the Israeli government of "ethnic cleansing" by trying to replace Arab Palestinian populations in its territory with Jewish Israelis."
This is a long standing accusation coming from both outside and inside Israel – I believe it to be true, based on Israel's long-term behaviour towards the Arabs – I think you yourself have said on numerous occasions that the Arabs have no right to their homeland because they've only been there (for how long?)and should go and live among their own people.
What on earth is that if it isn't "ethnic cleansing"?

Israeli settlers have also been accused of violence against the existing inhabitants of the land they build on.
So.....?
Chemical sprays and high pressure hoses have been used with boring regularity to get farmers to leave their land – not just by the settlers, but by the army as well.
Some time ago I put up a film of an Arab family being manhandled out of their home because a bunch of settlers fancied it.
The British left to the sound of hand-grenades being tossed into occupied houses by Israeli "freedom fighters" – go read Benny Morris and Einstein's and the list of Jewish intellectuals' letter – a matter of history.
If it wasn't actual violence, it was threatened violence backed by the forces of Laura Norder.
Blaming the Independent seems a little like "shooting the messenger", as Keith is fond of saying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 10:28 AM

Honest Reporting has, by the way, gotten many biased and antisemitic headlines and news stories retracted or corrected so I rather trust their judgement of bias and antisemitism that that of someone who manifests an almost pathological hatred of a country.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 10:21 AM

the author of your link is Simon Plosker, the editor of Honest Reporting, who has worked for the Israeli Defence Forces as a spokesperson and continues to do so as a reservist


Did Jon Stone write those excerpts cited?

Did The Independent publish them?

Is Simon Plosker making it all up?

Does the fact that Simon Plosker was in the IDF at one time and is a reservist, as are practically every Jew and many non Jews in Israel, disqualify him from critiquing Jon Stone and The Independent? You certainly seem to think so, or are just trying to smear him as you try to do with everyone who disagrees with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

"take it we're not going to revisit your somewhat distasteful accusation of my rewriting history" ...

This post of yours seems addressed to me. Not sure, if so, which of our numerous previous exchanges you refer to here, Jim. Reminder?

"former heroes with clay feet, and all that!"...

I have never set out to be anyone's hero. In what way [assuming, as I said before, this is meant for me] can I have been such? & in what particular have I now fallen short?

Feel bound to say that, slice it as you will, the post I quote from here, strikes me as a fair old (what might fairly be described as) 'rant'!

Traditional greetings, whatever

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM

"Hardly think 3 words constitute 'at length' "
Three weds repeated interminable without fail every time criticism of the Israeli regime shows its ugly head is a "rant" in my book, but maybe 'mantra' is more accurate - I stand corrected.
I take it we're not going to revisit your somewhat distasteful accusation of my rewriting history - can't say I'm surprised, though I am somewhat disappointed - ah well - former heroes with clay feet, and all that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 09:34 AM

Your link comes from Honest Reporting Brucie - nowhere does is answer a single point I have raised -
The only thing I have put up from the Independent is Obama's statement - are you claiming it is faked - love to know!!!!
We seem to have an odd mixture of Trappist Monks on a vow of silence and headless chickens running around looking for something to smear all critics of the Israeli regime with.
Have any of you got anything to say about my analysis (not forgetting the information I put up to back it up, of course)apart from Keith's old usual "its's all lies" that is?
Pathetique - as Beethoven put it.
Jim Carroll

HonestReporting (also Honest Reporting or honestreporting.com) is a pro-Israel,[1][2] non-governmental organization that monitors the media for what it perceives as bias against Israel.[3] The organization has affiliates in the United States, UK, Canada, Italy, and Brazil.
Criticism[edit]
The American Journalism Review described the organisation as a "pro-Israeli pressure group".[6]

After being criticized by HonestReporting for articles published by The Independent, author Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent that some of their readers sent him hate-mail.[7]

Following a 2004 article published in the British Medical Journal which criticised Israel for a high level of Palestinian civilian casualties and claimed that the pattern of injuries suggested routine targeting of children in situations of minimal or no threat, the journal received over 500 responses to its website and nearly 1,000 sent directly to its editor. In an analysis of the responses published in the journal, Karl Sabbagh concluded that the correspondence was orchestrated by Honest Reporting and aimed at silencing legitimate criticism of Israel. In his analysis Sabbagh pointed to evidence that that the correspondents had not read the article. Sabbagh also documented a significant proportion of offensive, abusive and racist insults among the correspondence. An editorial by the BMJ referred to the campaign as bullying and said that the best way to counter such behaviour was to expose it to public scrutiny.[8][9] Daniel Finkelstein, associate editor of The Times, responded that Sabbagh's piece was "anti-Israel propaganda" that did not meet even "basic academic standards" of scientific analysis.[10]

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

"Mike - I find your behaviour both tiresome and puzzling" · J Carroll
.,,.

Oh, deary-me, Jim. Do you now? Perhaps I'd better take a trip down the garden to eat worms, then, eh?

Or else recall what Dr Johnson (IIRC) once remarked to a man who had spoken slightingly of something written by one of his friends, "Sir, you may be sure it was writ with little thought of pleasing you."

Do you seriously maintain that 3 (count them - three!) factual words (they are, so, 'enemies of Israel', aren't they, whatever you may regard as their motivations or putative justifications?) constitute a "rant", while your lengthy animadversions are nothing but displays of ice-cool rationality? Away you!

≈M≈


"rant
verb   speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way
noun: an instance of ranting"
online dictionary

Hardly think 3 words constitute 'at length' - do you. While your interminable goings-on, now...

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 08:27 AM

Re. Jon Stone: Blatant Bias and Inept Journalism in The Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 08:15 AM

Came across this during my searches - can't blue-clickie it unfortunately, but too good to ignore

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-must-end-its-50-year-occupation-of-palestine-the-white-house-says-10129448.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 07:45 AM

Mike
I find your behaviour both tiresome and puzzling.
When "enemies of Israel" is used in defence as atrocities such as this it is a rant - the real enemies of Israel are those who commit these crimes in the name of the Israeli people and those who describe such criticism as an attack on the Jewish people extend that to Antisemitism.
My invitation to Keith is, of course, extended to you.
If you believe I have "re-written history", please feel free to point out where, but I would ask you hurry up - I'm not getting any younger.
Please back up your accusatiuon - I regard you as somewhat better than Keith (but I'm always happy to be corrected on that one too).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 07:02 AM

If you think a vanilla phrase like "enemies of Israel" is a rant, Jim, I can't imagine how you would react if a real rant came along --

although to be sure your own

"one man campaign to rewrite history is sickening"

might do at a pinch as a minor instance.

≈M≈

If, indeed, there is one ranter on this topic on this site, it would be betraying no secrets to reveal that his initials are JC & he lives in Ireland, tho originating from the north of England, & was once a member of a group organised by a man from Salford with initials JM aka EMacM.

Answers on a postcard please

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 06:47 AM

I have checked every fact put up

Do not be so silly.
How can you check so called "eye witnesses" who we know can be produced to say anything.

If you have any dispute with anything I have put up, please present it

Yes. I dispute the the value of quoting anti-Israel propaganda sites in a serious discussion.

Fact,
MacBride left responsibility as "directly or indirectly."
Israel admitted indirect responsibility as the controlling authority in Beirut at the time, but denies colluding in the massacre.

Fact,
Asked for examples of all the massacres by Israeli forces you keep referring to, you take us back 35 years (!) to a massacre committed not by Israelis but by a local Arab militia.
You have failed to make your case.

Fact,
No decent democratic country holds Israel responsible for any atrocity or massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 06:37 AM

"Jim, all the anti-Israel sites and Israel's enemies put up all that propaganda."
If you have any dispute with anything I have put up, please present it - rants like "enemies of Israel" don't hack it any more.
I have checked every fact put up - pleanty of reading there if you can find somebosy capable to read it for you
Give us some of your own or go away - your one man campaign is over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM

Jim, all the anti-Israel sites and Israel's enemies put up all that propaganda.
Do not swallow it all without question. You know they tell lies.

MacBride left responsibility as "directly or indirectly."
Israel admitted indirect responsibility as the controlling authority in Beirut at the time, but denies colluding in the massacre.

Asked for examples of all the massacres by Israeli forces you keep referring to, you take us back 35 years (!) to a massacre committed not by Israelis but by a local Arab militia.
You have failed to make your case.

No decent democratic country holds Israel responsible for any atrocity or massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 04:39 AM

Further reading:
Truth about Israel's vile role in 1982 Sabra-Shatila massacre of Palestinians

At Last the Truth About Sabra and Chatila Massacres

Enjoy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 04:20 AM

Enough of this Keith
These are the facts as I know them – I've become tired of your unqualified claims; if you have any evidence that they aren't correct, produce it
The Israelis suspected that Sabra/Shatila was full of weapons and fighters "The Israelis maintained that 2,000 to 3,000 "terrorists" remained in the camps, following Israeli guidance on how to enter it. The forces were mostly Phalangist, though there were some men from Saad Haddad's "Free Lebanon forces""- Wiki

Despite Israeli claims, neither weapons nor fighters were found, in fact the killers met with no armed resistance whatever from the refugees.
Knowing the bad blood between the Christian militia, 1,500 militiamen assembled at Beirut International Airport, then occupied by Israel. Under the command of Elie Hobeika, they began moving towards the area in IDF-supplied jeeps, some bearing weapons provided by Israel, (above link).
The Israelis drove the militiamen to the camp, opened the gates for them, and set up a base within range– they had previously fired shells into the camps.
"During that period, Israeli units were sporadically firing artillery rounds into the Sabra and Shatila camps, although no fire was being returned because the last PLO defenders had been evacuated two weeks earlier, and any arms larger than handguns had been collected at that time.
At noon Thursday, Sept. 16, a delegation of five old men bearing white flags tried to negotiate an end to the shelling of the two camps by the Israeli forces, which had now surrounded the camps and sealed the exits. Four of the Palestinian negotiators were killed. At 5 p.m. the first 150 Phalangist militiamen entered the camps and at 5:30 Israeli forces began firing flares over them to illuminate the narrow, twisting alleys, where massacres had already begun in one area only 100 yards from the nearest Israeli observation post. At this point mobs of Palestinian women began rushing to nearby camp exits, seeking to escape. Israeli tanks, stationed at 100- or 200-yard intervals and blocking all exits, turned back everyone. Israeli officers have testified that it was about this time that they first heard the order to kill the women and children, as well as the men, relayed over a walkie-talkie by militia commander Elie Hobeika, from the command post he shared with the Israelis. Israeli units continued firing illumination flares over the camps, a pattern they maintained throughout Thursday and Friday nights.
Starting Thursday evening, horribly wounded victims began pouring into two hospitals in the camps, and the airwaves were full of commands revealing what was going on inside, and queries from Israeli officers and enlisted men, who could not believe that their commanders realized that whole families were being slaughtered in front of their eyes. When two Israeli officers stationed in adjacent tanks began discussing with each other the executions of children they were watching, the voice of General Amos Yaron, commander of Israeli forces in Beirut, came on the air to warn them against such talk on the military radio."
WASHINGTON REPORT

The Phalangists slaughtered up to 3,500 of the occupants, raping the women then cutting their throats – corpses of pregnant women who had been disembowelled and their dead children ripped out were found throughout the area.
The Israelis provided illumination so the slaughter could be carried out throughout the night.
At the end of three days, the Israelis ordered the Falagists to stop and began to hide the evidence of the massacre with bulldozers.

"By Friday morning Israeli army bulldozers had arrived. While the Phalangist militiamen rested, corpses were bulldozed into a mass grave and Israeli soldiers sent food and water across the barricades to the militiamen. Word of what was going on spread rapidly throughout Beirut. Ze'ev Schiff, military correspondent of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, began telephoning Israeli officials, including Minister of Communications Mordechai Zippori. Zippori telephoned then Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir."
(Report from Washington link)

The Falangists were driven away – none were ever arrested or charged.
Jewish American nurse, Ellen Seigal, was present throughout the three days, treating the wounded, she was a loyal support of The State of Israel and gave evidence to the Kahan Enquiry.
Since the massacre she has dedicated her life to telling the world what happened over those three day.
HEROES OF SABRA SHATILA

Israel facilitated the massacre, they helped arm the killers, they illuminated the slaugher, they prevented the victims from escaping and survivors claim Israeli soldiers were seen in the camp while the killing was taking place:
"The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the Palestinian refugee camps, controlled access to them, and facilitated the massacre by firing illuminating flares over the camps.[5][6] In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, responsible.[7] The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found that Israeli military personnel were aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. Therefore it regarded Israel as having indirect responsibility. The commission held Ariel Sharon personally responsible for having disregarded the prospect of acts of bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps and not preventing their entry.[8] METAPEDIA

That is how I understand the events – if you have any evidence that this did not happen, produce it Keith – your one man campaign to rewrite history is sickening
Jim Carroll
By the way, the article and others from The Washington Report (published by the American Educational Trust) is well worth reading in full

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 04:20 AM

More weasely words from a charlatan

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 16 - 02:09 AM

No such thing as "the Redmond Enquiry" Keith - I made it up, so how can you claim what it said, which you did.

I am sorry I believed your lie.
I made no claim about what it said. I just responded to your made up claim of what it said, not realising that the whole thing was just more made up shit by you.
I too can be gullible at times.

But you did not make it up Jim, you just got the name wrong.
Your Macbride references are not quotes. It is how some website you chose not to name reported it.
Here it is reported using the wording you now claim to have made up.

"The MacBride commission's report, Israel in Lebanon, concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were directly or indirectly responsible in the massacres and other killings that have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between 16 and 18 September."
http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/sabra-and-shatila-massacre/613/sabra-and-shatila-massacre-general-info/26766/

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 05:07 PM

Yeah, but is Redmond alive, is he/she eminent, and are his/her hbooks available in regular bookstores??

What say you, Professor???

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 04:12 PM

Whoops. Looks like Brian May is confusing me with Musket.

Poor sod. I know Ian has been taken to task before now by people thinking he is posting mine and Musket's posts.

Confusing life innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 03:26 PM

Could I suggest Jim that you reiterate "No such thing as "the Redmond Enquiry" Keith - I made it up, so how can you claim what it said, which you did" just so everyone can see what an idiot this man is.

Once again Keith has demonstrated his complete and utter lack of knowledge and understanding about a subject he waffles on about.


Keith: Jim invented the Redmond Enquiry just to prove a point which most of us had already acknowledged.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 03:03 PM

"I do not believe that I have ever refered to you as "Carroll". As I say, I would appreciate the courtesy."!
And |I would appreciate an explanation of your dismissal of my post regarding Vannunu
I believe your past behaviour leaves in doubt whether any courtesy is due to you - you have shown little for me in the past.
"If you can't stand the heat" as they say
"The Redmond Enquiry found Israel guilty either "directly or indirectly" of the Sabra/Shatila massacre -"
No such thing as "the Redmond Enquiry" Keith - I made it up, so how can you claim what it said, which you did.
The McBride Enquiry "In 1983, a commission chaired by Seán MacBride, the assistant to the UN Secretary General and President of United Nations General Assembly at the time, concluded that Israel, as the camp's occupying power, bore responsibility for the violence.[19] The commission also concluded that the massacre was a form of genocide.[20]"
There are a load more links stating that Israel was both directly and indirectly responsible for the massacre, for intimidating the U.S. troops in Lebanon and for tricking the U.S. into supporting them over the massacre - not only from Human Rights organisations, but from U.S politicians and High-ranking military - don't uppose for on minute you will respond to them
McBride doe find Israel answerable for the massacre, by the way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 02:29 PM

I do not believe that I have ever refered to you as "Carroll". As I say, I would appreciate the courtesy.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 01:59 PM

The "Redmond Report" Keith has been interpreting so creatively doesn't exist

I only referred to the quote you provided Jim.
Here it is again,

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:45 AM
"Not true."
The Redmond Enquiry found Israel guilty either "directly or indirectly" of the Sabra/Shatila massacre -

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 01:55 PM

Having been given her statement -= you imply she is.(a liar)

No I do not. I admire her for her work and her honesty.

She and others from her hospital told the Kahan Enquiry that they did not know there had been a massacre.
They heard nothing to suggest one.
The refugees who sought refuge in the hospital BEFORE the massacre expressed fears of what the Phalange would do to them because Palestinians had recently committed atrocities and massacres in their villages. (No international outcry over murdered Christians of course.)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

The McBride enquiry is now only on Jstor, a subscribers only site, as far as I can make out – a couple of years ago it was freely on-line.
In 1983, a commission chaired by Seán MacBride, the assistant to the UN Secretary General and President of United Nations General Assembly at the time, concluded thatIsrael, as the camp's occupying power, bore responsibility for the violence.[19] The commission also concluded that the massacre was a form of genocide
A few of interesting links here:
Permission to Narrate

Action Alert Archives

A preventable massacre

Israel misled and bullied U.S.

Israel's systematic harassment of US Marines

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 10:43 AM

Guest - just been trying something out.
The "Redmond Report" Keith has been interpreting so creatively doesn't exist- the independent report that found Israel guilty of either participating in or facilitating was actually headed by Sean McBride - it is 'The McBride Report' - shouldn't have any trouble finding it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 10:27 AM

Jim can you provide a link to the Redmond report.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 10:25 AM

"I do not call Nurse Siegel a liar."
Having been given her statement -= you imply she is.
"She saw no-one massacred or buried."
No-one actually say the massacre - she and her colleagues heard it and she treated victims who told than what was going on.
On the basis of eye witness accounts from both victims and Israeli soldiers who were there, the Redmond enquiry found Israel "either "directly or indirectly" of the Sabra/Shatila massacre"
"Ne evidence of a massacre. There had been Ne evidence of a massacre. There had been fighting in the camp
WHAT!!!!
You are now implying that there was no massacere but the deaths were due to "Ne evidence of a massacre. There had been fighting in the camp"
What are you on Keith?
"It leaves it open as directly or indirectly responsible."
Redmond does not leave guilt open - he says they were guilty of either one or the other
You are deliberately twisting
You are lying about this - you have never read the "Redmond Report" - have you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

"The Redmond Enquiry found Israel guilty either "directly or indirectly" of the Sabra/Shatila massacre" possibly be described as "leaving it open"?

It leaves it open as directly or indirectly responsible.
It does not state that they were directly responsible, and Israel accepts indirect responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:38 AM

I do not call Nurse Siegel a liar.
She saw no-one massacred or buried.
She saw bodies beside the road. Some were old men but no women or children. Ne evidence of a massacre. There had been fighting in the camp.
Here is her testimony.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/79P9.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:27 AM

Jim

Could you please put a link to Nurse Segals testimony, I'm struggling to find anything pertinent on the net.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:20 AM

You have done your usual trick of taking a small slice of the massive amount of evidence and what she has written to back your support ofg terrorism - you have given an unlinked quote
You have just called Nurse Seigal a liar - I ask again - who else has ever made such a claim? - anywhere Israelis - the Israeli lobby - who?
A failure to respond to this question will confirm what we already know - that you make things up on behalf of terrorism
Yopu are now running away from your claim that Redmond left it open - hao can (using your own words) "The Redmond Enquiry found Israel guilty either "directly or indirectly" of the Sabra/Shatila massacre" possibly be described as "leaving it open"?
He said they were guilty of one or the other - it transpired they were possibly guilty of both - we will probably never know which as the Yanks vetoed them being tried - we can make up our own minds - Human Rights groups and honest human beings, including Israelis all over the planet believe them to be guilty - given their track record - that'll do for me.
One more time - Ellen Seigal is a liar - sez who?
Jim Carroll
By the way, you claim Israel has never committed massacres - Wiki lists four definite ones on Palestinian territory - the article appeals for more information.
The number of assassinations carried out by Israeli security forces makes interesting reading too.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:07 AM

Greg, they were obviously victims of the massacre.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:05 AM

And she saw no bodies being buried. Just a bulldozer clearing ground by the entrance to the camp in full view of the main road.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 09:04 AM

She saw a small group of bodies afterwards.

Who were doubtless beamed down by Scotty from the Enterprise, right Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 08:52 AM

Nurse Siegel said this.

"The section on Direct Responsibility also refers to us. It reads,

"When the group of doctors and nurses met IDF officers, they made no complaint that a massacre had been perpetrated in the camps. When asked why they had not informed the IDF officers about the massacre, they replied they had not known about it. The fact that the doctors and nurses who were in the Gaza Hospital -- which is proximate to the site of the event and where persons wounded arrived -- did not know about the massacre but only about isolated instances of injury, also shows that those who were nearby but not actually inside the camps (a reference to the IDF) did not form the impression that a massacre of hundreds of people was taking place."

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 08:10 AM

For crying out loud Keith Nurse Seigal was there for the duration of the massacre; far from seeing only "a small heap of bodies" she and her fellow medical staff treated them as they were brought in, talked to them, viewed the events from the top of the hospital (illuminated by Israeli flares throughout the three nights), were herded through the streets through the piles of bodies by the killers, expecting to meet with the fate of the victims (included in her testimony), witnssed the bulldozers brought in to dig the mass graves and finally, corresponded with an Israeli soldier she had seen from the top of the hospital.
Her experiences were thought important enough for her to have been interviewed by the Kahan Whitewash Committee.
What kind of a creature are you to go to such lengths to distort the account of an eye-witness in order to defend this massacre?
You included Nurse Seigal in your list of "liars" - whatever happened in Jenin has nothing to do with this massacre.
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE TAKEN IT ON YOURSELF TO DENY WHAT NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER DONE - WHO ELSE HAS EVER CALLED NURSE SEIGAL A LIAR?
"It is a tractic you should at least be aware of instead of swallowing every story without question."
During the recent Gaza massacres an Israeli spokesman claimed that the Israelis killed 1,000 terrorists - that has never been repeated - it was a lie - politicians and military men lie to further their cause.
You supported the "Friends of Israel" farrago of a report - you swallow it hook, line and sinker, without question; since it has been exposed as the shambles that it was, you have remained silent on it - ....you should at least be aware of instead of swallowing every story without question.
"No. It is Israel's side of the story."
Exactly - it was the defence of a regime that is fighting desperately to avoid being brought to book for war crimes and atrocities.
In the past they have relied on the U.S. to keep them from bing tried - after Gaza, Obama has told them they could not rely on America's support (one of your "respectable democracies")
"Redmond did not show them to have been "directly responsible" leaving it open."
Redmond did not "leave it open" - he said they were guilty of one or the other - since the events it has been shown they were possibly guilty of both - ye witnesses (whoops "liars") have placed them actually at the scene.
One woman described how she appealed to an Israeli soldier as she was being dragged away to be raped - he turned his back on her.
These people behaved like savages and you with all your Lord Haw-Haw enthusiasm, defend that savagery.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 07:13 AM

Jim, Nurse Siegel did not see anyone massacred.
She saw a small group of bodies afterwards.

squalid and as desperate as it gets Keith - all the witnesses were liars

The Jenin and Marmara witnesses were liars or made to lie. It is a tractic you should at least be aware of instead of swallowing every story without question.

You have opted for "indirectly responsible" on the basis that all the witnesses were "liars"

No. It is Israel's side of the story.
They were indirectly responsible because they were the controlling authority in Beirut at the time, but did not participate or collude in the massacre but did end it.
Redmond did not show them to have been "directly responsible" leaving it open.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 07:08 AM

"To what question need I rely Jim ?"
Presume you mean reply.
Re Vannunu
"you really are desperate Jim. I suggest you read a bit more about him"
I replied:
"Then perhaps you might enlighten me Lilo - or is this to be yet another of your hit-and-run visits?"
You know this - that's what you responded to with a plea that I used you chosen name
You and others have referred to me as "Carroll", "leftie", "your mob" and numerous other things - no problem - all part of the cut and thrust of lively debate - learn to live with it.
Truth to tell, I don't have a great deal of respect for those who indulge in hit-and-run sniping - not helpful and somewhat trollish.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 05:57 AM

To what question need I rely Jim ?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 05:45 AM

Sorry - didn't finish that
And I would appreciate a reply - that's what honest people do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jan 16 - 05:43 AM

And I would appreciate a reply
Jim Carroll