You are free to attack such people with evidence but despite being asked to provide the evidence your whatabouterry is staggering as you won’t provide us with a link to those words on which you’ve based your assertion with Hazel that is what was said.

You are wriggling round and round but you won’t provide proof he said those words. So are we to take it that you are backing Blears without proof? Should we ask Daud Abdullah to add your name to his legal case?

As I have explained to you the other things whilst unsavoury have little bearing on the simple matter of did he exactly say that?

You’ve gone round and round but not provided proof.

Do you find it acceptable that she has smeared someone without producing clear evidence?

It is a simple question you won’t answer.

Do you subscribe to the DaveT theory as put forth during his spat with one of the guys at IslamExpo “has no reputation to defend.”

Are you now taking lessons from HP’s approach?

What about the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the fact you can’t show that he called for attacks on Jews worldwide.

So please show me your proof and I’ll stand with you otherwise accept that he was smeared.

Is the case being referred to the CPS as you and Hazel had so much clear cut evidence regarding what he said.

No doubt Hazel Blears will recommend you for a community award and possibly a knighthood for services to.

I also notice one of your favourite Muslim Bashers – Hazel Blears – is now saying Ross and Brand should pay the BBC Fine for their show whilst asking the Department of Communities to handle her case for libel. Pot Kettle Black – huh? Why isn’t she paying for her own case herself?

How come you and your boyz at HP are not pulling her up on this?

I’ve yet to see her evidence to back up her claim that he precisely avocated what she said.

Also another thing that you are not highlighting is the fact she is taking the same approach as certain blogs took last year. So this raises the interesting question of are some ministers with undocumented links to right wing war tanks taking the advice or approach of certain bloggers when dealing with the Muslim community and their organisations.

You are quick to bash Muslims for links to war mongers but awfully quiet on similar links for other communities – strange eh?

Also in Afghanistan you could support the Afghans, in particualr teh pukhtoons, who form the majority of the state but who are eing ruled by ethnic minorities endofrce upon them by the American and their allies, who are in fact the same as the government they replaced.

It is Daud Abdullah who is taking Hazel Blears to court not the other way round.

If he said what she said he said then it would constitute a criminal offence and can be prosecuted.

The fact is he didn’t say that which is why he hasn’t even been visited by the Police. It is political posturing with unsubstatiated smears which is a disgrace.

How anyone can defend her position is beyond me.

As the Telegraph highlights today the plot to bomb a mosque in Glasgow wasn’t referred to as an extremist Christian plot but this constant labelling of Muslims is acceptable – why?

Now smears are acceptable. Where does it stop?

Now you keep going on about his position so either put your evidence to the authorities that he said that or accept he didn’t and she is incorrect at best and at worst well what can I say.

It is Hazel Blears who is unclear and frankly you are condemning someone based on her smears which is scandalous.

You just won’t address the issue of the behaviour of Hazel Blears which is unjust, biased and littered with false accusations and statements which she cannoit prove.

This highlights clearly why people complain aboiut your approach which frankly is similar to the nonsense your friends over at HP who you have admitted you like take in their approach.

At the moment your apporach copies the approach taken by some on the right in the IslamExpo issue. They feel that if the right condemn an organisation they then have no position to defend and people can say what they like about them.

It isn’t on and it isn’t correct.

She smeared him with a statement she cannot prove was made. It boils simply down to that. Are you now saying that if the government dislikes an organisation – any organisation – then it Ministers can smear people with unsubstantiated smears and allegations?

Isn’t that what was done at the time of the Iraq War and we were promised lessons had been learnt.

He never said what Hazel Blears said he said and in all your posturing you’ve never proven he made that exact comment. So she is wrong and its as simple as that.

Put it this way the easy way to prove he didn’t say that. If he had said that he could be prosecuted for incitement but here is the point, the government including Hazel Blears hasn’t referred his case to the Croiwn Prosecution Service. If he said that why haven’t they done that.

Because he didn’t say that.

So that in itself proves she is wrong and she is the one who has smeared a member of the public unfairly. You can’t do that as it is unethical no matter how much their position is despised you can’t make up allegations about people.

Are you seriously sugggesting that the terms of the Declaration were vague to Abdullah, that he did not know the meaning of the words, which were to him non-specific, at the point of signing?

I think Abdullah would be better advised to clear up his intentions for signing the document rather than use the “he did not know what he was signing” defence. Because the latter sounds like pure snake oil.

Looking at the article again I still see it as broad and general, but not vague.

“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”

It specifies the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters at a time when that role for the RN was under discussion and afirms that this would be in effect a declaration of war which members of the Islamic Nation would be obligated to fight by all ways and means.

By signing up to that, Dr Abdullah very specifically identifies himself as a member of ‘The Islamic Nation’ and accepts that he has obligations to it, including considering himself to be at war with the UK should RN vessels enter ‘Islamic waters’ with a view to cooperating with Israel. A war to be conducted ‘by all ways and means.’
He may not have meant that, but he signed it.

To say ‘We are now at war and must fight by all ways and means’ is not specific, but that is not the same as being vague. It means everything is on the table, nothing is excluded. If it meant vigorous lobbying it should have said so.

Hence asking Daud Abdullah to clarify what these mean, Blears was entitled to do. Making specific statements saying these advocated attacks on Jews worldwide isn’t correct.

She asked for clarification on his position – Tick – Correct.

She made a specific statement on something she was asking for clarification – Cross – Incorrect.

You can’t say clarify this and then tell people it means something when you are waiting to hear the clarification!! It isn’t clear at that point.

In the translation used by the BBC the two articles in question are quite generalised, but I wouldn’t say vague.

Dr Abdullah was quite likely sincere when he said that he did not condone violent attacks on supporters of Israel, whether nations, institutions or individuals. But then, he wouldn’t be the first functionary to sign a document without taking on board the full impact of every paragraph.

If the translation in general use is a ‘MEMRI cribsheet’, then is there an alternative available?

She make a specific point which is what she claims is in a vague statement.

Your flogging a dead horse.

1. It is a vague statement and she was entitled to ask for clarity of his position on each of the points.

2. Without him first confirming his position on those points she wasn’t entitled to make a false claim on his position.

3. Even though he clearly said on Newsnight that he didn’t support attacks of British Forces and Jewish Civilians she went on to smear him with a false claim based on her own interpretation of the statement which most likely came from her Right Wing War Tank friends that she likes to keep.

4. Just because the right wing war tanks say it is so doesn’t make it true.

5. This is the same approach taken in the war on Iraq – WMD’s and lies about those. Haven’t we learnt anything?

If the war on Iraq proved anythign it was that politicians shouldn’t make up lies to justify their position.

The only thing I am grateful about is that this whole unsavoury episode hasn’t caused further problems in community relations.

At this point when he has clearly stated this then what is left for Blears other than to accept when she claimed she wanted clarification; instead she went on to make up a false allegation that he called for attacks on Jews worldwide.

Why do you find it so difficult to see that she was palying a dirty sordid game and made a false smear. As I said with so many other thinsg she could have said why make up a pack of lies?

Also as has been asked and what she won’t answer is why she has one policy for Muslims supporting Palestinians and one policy for Jews supporting Israel. That in itself is a racist policy.

Blears is in the wrong here and it is obvious when even her most ardent Right Wing Supporters are resorting to portraying this as a stand of principles. But what is the principle in making up false claims?

You are failing to answer key points about Blears.

She is wrong and everyone knows it. This was her right wing showmanship gone wrong and its exactly the same as her beloved Policy Exchange making up receipts to back their claims. She made it up and is too damn arrogant to admit she is wrong.

You know she made up that claim but you keep pushing the line.

At the end of the day in court you and Hazel and Policy Exchange can bring up all the dodgy links you like. But if he didn’t say those words then she is in the wrong and we as tax payers will have to pay for it. It was a stupid careless statement and if Blears loses she should pay from her own money not my taxes.

What is more shocking is the fact that Blears has failed to question the leadership of the Jewish Community regarding its support for Israel when Israel clearly violated human rights and continues to do so.

She should take an even handed approach but doesn’t and whilst you claim that you don’t support Israel you back people who refuse to question any strand of Israeli policy. You don’t find that approach strange?

She is wrong for smearing someone. He is wrong for signing a meaningless declaration. At the end of the day they are both a sign of what is wrong with the approach to the Middle Eastern situation.

A true sign of justice is when you preach justice for all not just your side. Thats what both of them can’t grasp. Their spat isn’t our problem as both shouldn’t be where they are in positions of responsibility and their behaviour shows that.

so who can believe your, and their, forked tongues, let alone ‘judjement’?

7. The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.

Rather than outright denials from Daud Abdullah, which are a waste of time because there is a document with his signature on it, he needs to clarify some of the wording on that Declaration:

“Islamic Nation” – what constituencies does this nation comprise and who are its leaders?

What is this “position” towards the “Zionist Entity” and to “countries, institutions or individuals” which provide “a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity”?

I guess we will learn all this and more in a court of law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/31/hubble-space-telescope-space-exploration

he does not once mention that Blears had “falsely claimed he had advocated attacks on Jews worldwide”.”

Are you unable to read Sid?

“Her latest claim as stated in a letter on her behalf to our secretary-general and published in the Guardian today is that I signed a document “advocating attacks on Jewish communities all around the world”. She had not raised this allegation before yesterday and it is entirely untrue.”

“3. I am absolutely opposed to any attack or violence directed against innocent persons of any faith or no faith anywhere in the world. To claim that I call for attacks on Jewish communities throughout the world is completely false and an inflammatory and malicious assault on my beliefs, words and actions.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/hazelblears-islam

Or do you understand the words “entirely untrue” and “completely false” in a different way?

Effectively- in damage to pocket and reoutation- they both can and probably will if the case goes ahead.