BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

Dave, debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, so of course it was a criticism but directed at Teribus and ignoring the far worse offence from Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:11 AM

I did not criticise anyone, Keith. I said I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. If there is any criticism, explicit or implied, in that statement I cannot see it. Can you please explain how you consider it to be such?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 09:58 AM

Jim, you objected,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

It was not.
My quote was of Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror exactly as I stated. You were wrong to ascribe it to Croker, Coaker or anyone else.

Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did

Yes. It is a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
DtG, you criticised Teribus for discussing a group of people rather than the issues in hand. Did you miss Jim's disgusting post 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM ?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM

You may live to regret that last statement Steve, it may well be misconstrued and misquoted in future to say "I do admire your undiluted energy" full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 08:39 AM

You really are as daft as a brush, Teribus. I must say, I do admire your undiluted energy for these insulting diatribes of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:52 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains.

The term "usual suspects" was, I believe, coined a long time ago in this particular context by Joe Offer and applies equally to both sides of the argument in these inevitably circular debates. Thanks for the explanation of your own usage for it though. I find it interesting that a person or group of people is being discussed rather than the issues in hand. Maybe it goes a long way towards explaining why common ground is never sought in these situations?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, yourself, Steve Shaw, Dave the Gnome, Raggy, Greg.F - those who made a habit of ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains.

Shaw did try to come back at what he sees as the opposition by using the term the "usual convicts" but apart from that being defamatory it didn't catch on.

I think collectively, just purely for challenging your view on things we have been accused of being guilty of every "....ism" and being representative of every ".....ist" in the book. Automatically assumed to being died in the wool "Tories" and ultra-right wing - we are of course nothing of the sort - we are merely reactive in that we challenge and disprove the "made-up-shit", myths, misrepresentations, lies and half-truths that you normally present in your biased and bigoted rants.

Looking at posting history I have been here longer yet have posted roughly a third of your contributions, the picture is the same with the rest of "your" pals - the term "serial gobshites" comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:39 AM

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
Who interviewed and quoted Vernon Croker (misnamed Coaker in the link) and took her headline from him - the daily Mirror is virtually non-political nowadays, leaning vaguely to Labour right
"Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears."
No lies or smears Keith - yuou have said everything I said there and have had them put before you a dozen times
Are you really claiming you didn't accuse all Muslims of what I said you did
Please say yes and I'll put your exact "implant" claim up and systematically go through the rest of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:58 AM

Whilst I vehemently disagree with your scurrilous and racist broadbrush condemnation of Arab leaders, I'm happy to accept after all you've said since that it was they you intended to attack. I suggest that you review your posts more carefully in future. As for this:

"By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?"

If you really want to pick us off for loose language (look who's talking!), kindly note that I am extremely careful, unlike you, to point to the precise target of my criticism. It takes more virtual ink but I don't criticise "Israelis" en masse, ever. I might refer to the policies of the Israeli regime, or words pretty close to those, leaving it in no doubt that I do not blame the Israeli people for what their leaders do. And speaking of loose talk I'd remind you that the government of Israel comprises the leaders of both Jews AND Arabs, not just "the Jews of Palestine" [sic]. There were a fair few Arabs thereabouts last time I looked into it. At least a quarter of the population, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

Jim, your last post was pure personal attack. Just lies and smears.
Presumably you are unable to defend your case in any more intelligent way.

Steve, it is obvious that Teribus referred to the Arab leaders because the ordinary people have no say in what is done in their name.
There are no Arab democracies.

Jim, from your Indy piece,
"Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler,

So that's two then, and I have acknowledged that it is not just Corbyn supporters anyway.
He does not explain why the leadership saw fit to suspend some 50 members for anti Semitism, or why the entire NEC was appalled by recent cases of anti Semitism, so he is just in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Jim,
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker,

No Jim. It was by Susie Boniface, a columnist on left wing Daily Mirror.
You do not need links. Just Google the text.
Here it is anyway,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-going-9484923#r3z-addoor

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 03:46 AM

"you and the "usual suspects"
Can we clear this up
Your leading "usual suspect" is Keith, who is a fanatical Israeli atrocity denier, an extremist Islamophobe who believes all male British Muslims are culturally implanted to rape underage girls, and an anti-Semite, who claims there is a Jewish parliamentary pact of silence to cover up the nature of Labour anti-Semitism.
Keith has managed to make himself a standing joke with his "real historians" who sell "real books" (none of which he has read) in "real bookshops".
Then we have Ake, a raving homophobe who doesn't believe that socialism is left wing, refuses to describe his version of socialism (and is probably a National Socialist), hates liberals and seems to think Donald Trump is god's saviour of mankind.
Finally we have Bobad - a vitriol-spitting troll.
A truly impressive band of brothers!
You, yourself, up to now, have been unable to respond to those who disagree with you without talking down to them and childishly insulting them with your contemptuous and contemptible responses.
I have had to post only a small number of them from only two threads - a formidable list, to get you to slow down to the extent you have done - but should you persist, I will continue to put them up, to display you in full flow - Homs Horror should keep me busy for a week or two.
You really don't seem to have gathered that you know very little and seem not particularly capable of learning, given your bombastic, belligerent attitude to others.
You have never at any time convinced anybody with your archaic, jingoistic approach to modern society - you are an anachronism
Why not give us 'lesser mortals' a break, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:47 AM

Shaw, are you really trying to tell others on this forum what I meant? Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

You raised a point, I clarified it, you refused to accept the clarification - like I said Shaw having a "Vulgar; Fraudulent" moment - same thing happened there too.

Teribus - 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

You {Steve Shaw} say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Now having clarified and highlighted the point as to who I was referring to - is there anything else that might make it clearer to you?

By the way when you and the "usual suspects" refer critically to, and condemn, the actions of the "Israelis" are you referring to the people of Israel or the Government of Israel (the leaders of the Jews of Palestine)?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

"Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned..."

Jim, you are wrong to accept that Teribus was referring to Arab leaders when he referred to their stealing, grasping hands, scum of the earth, etc. There's the quote again. I won't belabour you with the whole post of his, but you can check it out if you like - he was NOT talking about "leaders" when he made those comments. Check that quote again: "since Arafat departed..." he said, so the rest of it was about Arabs in general, NOT leaders. There is nothing to twig. You can't come here and say one thing then laugh at people because they got it right, which is precisely what he is doing. Fine if he wants to go back and modify his language, but, as ever with him, he hasn't done that, preferring to go on the attack instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:25 PM

Pretty meaningless, even for your meaninglessly low standards Keith
Your UNLINKED quote is from right winger, Vernon Croker, fierce opponent of Corbyn, ex shadow foreign secretary - no numbers, no description of anti-Semitism - just how to win elections - says it all really.
Until you provide evidence of anti-Semitism, it remains at the "this man is a burglar but I don't know what he stole" level
You tell us what needs stamping out and we'll all but on our big boots and stamp on it
Maybe you can get your ,Jewish pact of silence' to reveal their closely guarded secrets,
Feckin' joke!!!
A view from a Labour member from a non -Labour supporting Paper
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:06 PM

Jim,
"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes

Do not kid yourself Jim.
It is valid, and you are in contravention of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 11:29 AM

Daily Mirror today,

" Stop agonising over anti-Semitism: just stamp on it and move on. Abandon what YOU think you're supposed to be doing and start doing what VOTERS think you should be doing. "

So it still needs stamping on according to a Labour supporting paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

At the present time the leader of the ruling party in Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, is up to her arse in a four billion euro scandal
Her British supporters have claimed she is being "witch-hunted" and the man who exposed the scandal has been suspended - she has refused to step down
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:33 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "

You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth",

There you see Shaw - even the rather obtuse Jim has twigged what was meant.

You say you wanted the truth? The so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine when given a choice have chosen violence. When not fighting or targeting Israeli civilians they chose to fight and squabble amongst themselves. Once elected to power the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine renege on promises to hold elections in order to hold onto the reins of power. Those in power have total control over the massive sums in aid that have been poured into the West Bank and Gaza, yet the funny thing is that all this money never seems to percolate through to those the aid was intended to help, wonder why that is Shaw? Could it possibly be because the so-called leaders of the Arabs of Palestine are totally corrupt - and these are the "leaders" you defend, support and cheer on from the sidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. "
You single out Arab leaders as "dishonest and scum of the earth", while ignoring the fact that the Netanyahu's have been up to their necks in scandals and corruption accusations (admittedly the "democratic" bit doesn't apply to Israel.
The Netanyahu's have been accused by Israeli politicians of behaving lik royalty and abusing their domestic employees - particularly the alcoholic wife.
Our own British Government has overseen banking scams and incompetence's for years and is now openly running Britain for the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
This is now a description of 21 presidential Trump's (President - in - waiting of the richest and most powerful democracy on the planet)appointees for the new government
Sixteen are white
Three are former generals
Most are billionaires (so much so that this is 50 times wealthier than George Bush's cabinet - collectively worth more than the 43 million poorest U.S, households combined)
This fact will quite likely give rise to conflicts of interest in decision making.
And you dare to call Arab leaders thieves and scum of the earth?
If it is anti-Semitic to demand standards from Israel that you would not of other nations, then the reverse is true of other leaders.
Your accusation of "sum of the earth thieving Arab leaders is selective and plain racism
None of this is about the quality of leadership, it is about the seizure of land and the ethnic cleansing that is happening in Israel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:29 AM

I understand full well what you said and it's up there in all its uneditable glory for all to see. You tarred all Palestinian Arabs, not just their leaders, with the same brush. We can all read plain English. If you're worried about my sinking my Wheatcroftesque teeth into you, the answer is simple. Just tell the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:03 AM

Ah Shaw is exhibiting his "Wheatcroft" streak. We can now expect him to whizz round in circles "worrying" it to death. As to distortion if you do not understand what was being said and draw an inference that was incorrect and then ignore and refuse to accept the clarification offered, then it is obvious that you are not discussing or debating any point, you are deliberately seeking a fight. Isn't there an internet slang term for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:51 PM

All the distortion lies in the backtracking. I'm sorry, but Teribus's post is up there for everyone to read (if there's anyone left who chooses to read his splenetic nonsense). No-one cares about your lies, bobad. Everything we could conceivably need to judge Teribus, and you for that matter, is up here. I'd love to hear what you think are our lies and distortion (broad brush not acceptable - chapter and verse if you don't mind). You are both up shit creek without a paddle. Bang to rights. Look after yourself, Keith. You know you shouldn't be associating yourself with these blokes at your stage in life, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:29 PM

Don't sweat it Teribus, lies, distortion and putting words in others' mouths is the stock-in-trade of the likes of Shaw and his buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Plainly obvious who I was referring to Shaw. here are a few clues:

1: In 2007 it was the leadership and members of Hamas and Fatah that fought it out in Gaza NOT the ordinary people.

2: Who in any community has the power to organise, call and hold elections? Certainly NOT the ordinary people such power rests with the political leadership.

3: Who received the vast sums in aid? The ordinary people? Hardly Shaw they are as much in the shit now as they were in 1947. The aid Shaw at the insistence of Yasser Arafat goes directly to the leaders, that was the system he set up (must have learned that from his Uncle Eh?).

So in stating what I did there is no way whatsoever that I could be referring to the general populace of Gaza or the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

"the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law."
Which has been made totally invalid by the Israeli's ignoring it to defend their war crimes
This opinion has been put forward by Jews - members of the Israeli establishment including - it is totally unusable as a definition while this happens.
Your own antisemitism in claimng a Parliamentary Jewish plot, on the other hand.....!!!
There is no exuse for Teribus's mask- slip racist statement - it was basic, crude racism, unless tyou would like to prove Arabs to be "thieving scum of the earth" - and allow your mask to slip
Is that what you believe?
Your inevitable silence will be reply enough.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Are you stating that the post was NOT racist. If so please explain your thinking.

Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM

It is much easier to denounce a post as "racist" than to challenge that actual points made.
Impossible in fact.

Jim's statements unequivocally contravened the legal definition of anti Semitism employed by British police and enshrined in British law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 09:29 AM

"yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course""
Not surprised in the slightest - it's refreshing that he crawls out of the closet in this way though
Put's the rest of them in context perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 08:41 AM

I would surmise that you two are not at all surprised by yet another racist, violent and bigoted post from this idiot. I take this as "par for the course"

Perhaps one day he will see his own post for what they are, but I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:37 AM

"they are the scum of the earth"
Fair's fair Steve - it reall isn't discriminatory or racist if it's about Arabs - not to these people anyway.
Amazing what maggots these discussions draw out of the apple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:24 AM

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Sure. A reminder (and you were not talking about their leaders, by the way - go and check yourself out):

"... the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best...stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of...they are the scum of the earth..."

Just wondering what would come raining down on anyone who generalised in that way about the Jews of Israel. Never mind. I'll let you wallow in your "definition" as you hone your double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM

"IHRA"
By the fact that Israel has chosen to ignore the item in that definition, that which makes associating the actions of Israel anti-Semitic, neither the IHRA, or any other "accepted" definition of anti-Semitism are valid other than discriminating against the Jewish people
What I said has been said over and over again by Jews throughout the world – they are dismissed as "self-hating" – I stand with them, not the terrorist State of Israel's manipulation of the death of millions of people at the hands of the Nazis
This definition is being used to prevent Israel from standing trials for crimes against humanity and war crimes – so far blocked by U.S. vetoes.
Israeli policy is directly responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism in two ways – by identifying their behaviour with the Jewish People, among some, they have turned opposition to Israeli policy into opposition to The Jews as a whole.
The fact that Israel had peddled the idea that to attack Israeli policy is "antsemitic" means that the estimation of a rise in anti-Semitism now counts attacks on Israel as being anti-Semitic – The Jewish People get it with both barrels.
The only anti-Semitism on this forum comes from the likes of Bobad, who vitriolically describes any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic and from Keith, who envisages a Jewish Parliamentary plot to keep silent about so-called Labour antsemitism
Teribus can shove his accusations of anti-Semitism up his hole – if there is any room for it alongside his head, which appears to be permanently lodged there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:38 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

1: Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

"That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark."

From the IHRA definition, adopted by the British Government and as used by UK Police Forces since 2015 in defining anti-Semitic race hatred.

Here is what Jim Carroll posted:

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

Here is the IHRA Definition of what is considered to be anti-Semitic behaviour:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.


2: Almost in the same breath:

"the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned" - Teribus

"No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind." - Steve Shaw

Really Steve where in that quoted passage have I referred to Islam? As I haven't nothing contained in that quote could ever be considered "Islamophobic". But to analyse what I did say:

(a) "the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other"

Mere observation and actual fact previously commented on by T.E. Lawrence and others. Do you wish to dispute that? Would you like me to furnish you examples of this almost incessant internecine conflict between the Arabs in the region since 1920? Easily enough done.

(b) "launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of "

Referring to the so-called leaders of the "Palestinians" in Gaza. Do you deny that Hamas in their 2007 "spat" with Fatah that Hamas and Fatah followers were thrown from the roofs of multi-storied buildings in Gaza? Do you deny that promised elections have not been held? The last elections run by the Palestine National Authority in the West Bank or by Hamas in Gaza were in 2006, tell us all Steve why no further elections have been held and who is responsible for that? What organisation and who in that organisation controls the aid money that is given to the Palestine National Authority and to Hamas? Considering that they have received more in foreign aid than the whole of Europe received after the Second World War these Arab "leaders" appear to have done very little with it apart from making themselves extremely rich - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and you are one of their biggest apologists, you applaud them all the way whilst criticising Israel thereby making yourself guilty of anti-Semitic behaviour in as much that you are - Applying double standards by requiring of it {Israel} a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation..

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:34 AM

I think what Bobad means, is that Mr Gove's article has exposed weaknesses in your usual rant?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:05 PM

He doesn't know me from Adam. And in any case I tend not to worry about complete lunatics who "have me pegged to a tee," whatever that means. Life's too short. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:46 PM

Well yeah, he has you pegged to a tee Shaw so what else can you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:38 PM

Bloody Nora, bobad. Gove is a laughing stock in this country. Yesterday's man, totally loopy. Do yourself a favour and do your homework before you post. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:15 PM

Right- Mr Gove - Boris' lapdog, creationist symptathizer, Freedom of Information Act dodger, foe of the NHS, supporter of the invasion of Iraq - he'seven less credible than YOU are, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:57 PM

Michael Gove hits it out of the park:

For those on the left addicted to guilt-tripping and grievance-mongering, who believe that poverty is a consequence of western exploitation and that bourgeois ethics lead to oppression, the existence of a political entity that is a runaway success precisely because it is a bourgeois-minded, capitalist-fuelled, western-oriented nation state is just too much to bear. Their ideological prejudices have collided with a stubborn, undeniable, fact.

So what do they do? Keep the prejudices, of course, and try to get rid of the fact. Try to undermine, delegitimise and reduce support for Israel. Make it the only country in the world whose right to exist is called continually into question. Make the belief in that state's survival, Zionism, a dirty word. Denounce, as the NUS president has, a British university for being a "Zionist outpost". And instead call organisations pledged to eliminate Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas "friends", as Jeremy Corbyn has.

Antizionism is not a brave anti-colonial and anti-racist stance, it is simply antisemitism minding its manners so it can sit in a seminar room. And as such it deserves to be called out, confronted and opposed.

Left's hatred of Israel is racism in disguise

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:03 PM

Just by way of clarification to the intellectually challenged, I put homosexual "marriage" in quotation marks, as I, along with the vast majority of people worldwide and millions of people in the UK, do not recognise such a sexual relationship as marriage.
I would also remind IC's that this relationship is not regarded as legal in part of the UK itself.

There are laws, some which I approve of and some that I do not and I shall defend that position for what is left of my life.

I opposed the law on the criminalisation of homosexuality, and I shall continue to oppose the legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Almost in the same breath:

the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned

No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM

"saved me the bother"
Oh dear, we really are a sore loser. aren't we (and pompous with it) - what with your "to licence or not to licence" and "got any gum chum" contradictions.
Never mind - at least you have Mudcat's own vitriol- spitting troll to keep you warm
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:54 PM

Well done bobad, saved me the bother of pointing that fact out to the amazingly ill-informed Mr. Carroll, who is like Rafferty's pig whose "ignorance would have disgraced any cannibal".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

lands they had occupied for millennia

Lol......your ignorance would be astonishing if it weren't so often on display.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

"Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how $3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?"

What you are describing there Shaw was the status quo from 1956 onward. The situation has got slightly worse for the "Palestinians" (Who by the way are a 1970 invention and creation of Yasser Arafat - if you look at it logically by 1970 the Jews of Israel were as much "Palestinian" as any Arab from the region) because the Israelis are now no longer surrounded by rich Arab front line states - Both Egypt and Jordan have signed bilateral treaties with Israel and both have held. that leaves Lebanon and Syria. Both those countries have more than enough problems of their own to worry about taking on Israel and the IDF. Russia is no position to assist, either economically or militarily. The USA has a binding bilateral defence treaty with Israel that guarantees that country's sovereignty dating back to 1948 - tell me on what grounds should that binding treaty be cast aside? The state of Israel has been under constant attack and threat of attack since 1948 - the Arabs could have opted for peace at any time they wished, they chose not to do so, they chose war and must pay the price and accept the consequences of having done so. The Arabs of Palestine who chose to wage war and lost have as much right of return and title to their former possessions as the Jacobites in the 18th century, if you wage and risk all in war and lose the stakes are extremely high, and if you think for one second that real life is like a computer game that is automatically reset to the previous start position then you are a fool living in cloud cuckoo-land.

On two occasions (1967 and in 1973) Israel was under dire threat and the odds were firmly in favour of the Arab armies ranged against Israel - they were an nuclear power then weren't they Shaw? Why did they not use their weapons then? If faced with total annihilation why should they not use the threat of nuclear attack to deter their enemies? The USA does, the Russians do, we do as do the French.

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

"I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings."

I of course have absolutely no control whatsoever of what you wish to idiotically "assume" but the reasons I always refer to "Palestinians" because they are a political construct of a ruthless, thoroughly corrupt and totally dishonest leader Yasser Arafat - even as I type there are still hundreds if not thousands trying to trace the $millions he stole from the Arabs of Palestine, they have been doing so since Arafat died. The territory of Palestine was defined by the League of Nations in 1920. It was redefined in 1923 when 77% of the territory was hived off for the sole settlement by the Arabs of the region. Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned - instead you applaud them and cheer on their efforts.

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:31 PM

The word Palestinian is a word that everyone else manages to use without putting speech marks round it. Clearly, you are so afflicted with hate that you can't bring yourself to utter the word normally like everybody else. You've been taking lessons from ache, haven't you, what with his homosexual "marriage" and sexual minority "rights." Two of a kind, why am I not surprised! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Here we have it - the Palestinians were interlopers in lands they had occupied for millennia and every critisism of Israel is "propaganda" even when it's made by Jews
Two mindless fanatics for the price of one
Aren't we blessed on Mudcat to have t two such deep thinkers!!
Feckin' madmen - the pair of them - I wonder if they have mummified corpses of their mothers locked away in the attic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM

Sorry,
Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says

If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says
If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.