Making excuses for murder


by Sunny
26th July, 2006 at 11:52 pm    

Unsurprisingly, Gene over at Harry’s Place is busy trying to make excuses for the deaths of four UN observers killed by Israeli bombing. He says there is “absolutely no evidence”. His defensive attitude is slightly bizarre given the Israeli army knew exactly where the Observers were and were warned several times of their actions. No wonder Garry Smith calls it a joke.

But, you know, shit happens in war. As we are constantly told. Sure, gang fights happen all the time too and sometimes shit happens then too. It doesn’t make it any more right. Rather than making excuses or try to fudge the issue, it’s much better to accept that it was wrong and should be condemned. You maintain much more credibility then.

And the latest is: Israeli warplanes bombed 100 targets in southern Lebanon yesterday and one family of seven civilians was killed. More than 400 Lebanese have been killed in total. Hizbullah yesterday fired some 70 rockets into northern Israel, killing a 15-year-old girl. More than 40 Israelis have died in the violence, including 18 who have been killed by rockets.

Update: Let me clarify a point I made earlier. The Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has expresseddeep regret” over the deaths. He has not admitted the bombings may have been deliberate. I mistakenly gave that impression earlier.

But Annan is right to have suspicions they were deliberate, given the warnings, Israel’s advanced precision technology, and the IDF’s lack of attention to civilian casualties in Lebanon. If Hizbullah said all Israeli casualties were mistakes since they were aiming at military structures – would you believe them? I suspect Gene would treat such claims with disdain. Why exactly should we take the IDF at face value, given they want to bomb Lebanon to kingdom come and believe this is a clash of civilisations?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Middle East






228 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Katy Newton — on 26th July, 2006 at 11:58 pm  

    Factual correction:

    Ehud Olmert has not “admitted complicity”. He has apologised but has insisted that the incident was accidental, as both of the articles you cite state.

  2. Katy Newton — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:02 am  

    Also, I understood Gene to be saying that there is absolutely no evidence that Israel intended to kill UN observers, which is what Kofi Annan appeared to be suggesting, not that there is no evidence of any attack on the UN post.

  3. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:07 am  

    Accident. Ha ha ha. Little Timmy getting overexited with the skipping rope and knocking Grandma’s tea set onto the floor is an accident. Flying big fuck-off airplanes into a region where there or may or not may be a handful of blokes that pissed you off but killing hundreds of women, children and innocent observers is not a fucking accident. It’s cold-blooded cunting murder

  4. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:09 am  

    I’m sorry but “there is absolutely no evidence that Israel intended to kill UN observers”

    And that makes it ALRIGHT?!

    Isn’t that just the kind of evidence you need to realise these piss cunts haven’t got a clue who they’re really killing?

  5. Katy Newton — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:11 am  

    I didn’t express an opinion about it one way or the other. I read Harry’s Place earlier today and I didn’t think that Sunny had accurately reflected what Gene was saying so I pointed that out.

  6. Katy Newton — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:13 am  

    The words “absolutely no evidence” should have been in quotes.

  7. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:43 am  

    Babe, I’m not saying it’s your fault. I love you and want your babies. I just want to maim anyone who tries to validate cold-blooded murder. It’s right up there with ‘she got raped but she was wearing a short skirt.’

  8. Katy Newton — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:44 am  

    Oh Kismet, for one terrible moment I thought it was over between us.

  9. Ken — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:51 am  

    Hezbollah has been using the UN observer posts as cover. as confirmed by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie’s.
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only

    Even the Canadian PM has doubted that the attacks were deliberate.

    Here’s an Israeli bloggers take on the issue.
    http://israelrules.blogspot.com/2006/07/un-perdiction-coming-true.html

  10. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:52 am  

    Never! The bastards who make war are never going to affect the lovers who want a peace of your lovely, lovely arse

  11. Sunny — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:24 am  

    Katy, I can imagine why Kofi Annan may want to accuse Israel of deliberately killing the observers, given the IDF were told exactly where they were going to be, and repeatedly warned that the shells were falling too close.

    You are right in saying Olmert has not admitted they were deliberate. My mistake there.

    But given that the IDF is not really paying much attention to civilian casualties in Lebanon (there is little point comparing their activities to Hizbullah since the latter is clearly a terrorist org in my opinion whose aim is to kill Israelis) I can understand the scepticism to their claims of innocence.

    What is more interesting is how Gene has spun the issue. He carries on by suggesting fog of war (I can cite you examples of Indian soldiers killing each other by mistake too) but that has no direct bearing on the issue now.

    If Hizbullah were to say that all the Israelies killed by their rockets were accidental since they were actually aiming at military structures – would you believe them?

    He then follow by a picture of two flags close to each other, suggesting the UN is close to Hizbullah. What’s the implication there? The UN deserved it? They’re blaming Israel because they sympathise with Hibullah? It’s a classic fudge to detract from the issue at hand, I feel.

  12. Sunny — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:32 am  

    Ken – Again, the implication is that because some Hizbullah fighters were using them as cover, Israel was justified in bombing them? Given there was constant interaction between generals at the IDF and the UN observers, someone could have had the thought, you know, of warning them? Asking them to come back because of Hizbullah’s strategy? No one thought of that?

    This reminds me of the time the US army bombed Al-Jazeera offices, in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being told exactly where the offices were. That was “not deliberate” either we were told.

  13. StrangelyPsychedelique / Kesara — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:00 am  

    I think a lot of people overestimate the efficiency of lines of communication during war.
    The U.S. military has a rather apt term for when things dont go quite well: clusterf*ck.

    I just want to maim anyone who tries to validate cold-blooded murder.

    lol.

  14. Hettie — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:20 am  

    Sunny: if you made a mistake in your post I’m sure you can correct it in there, too.

    Guess not everyone reads all the comments…

  15. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:27 am  

    NOT. DELIBERATE. IS. NOT. A. GOOD. THING

    I’m sorry I got us sued boss. It wasn’t deliberate.

    Well, if you can’t even justify your actions, that just means you’re shit. What else are you doing wrong and been getting away with? YOU’RE FIRED

  16. Katy Newton — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:34 am  

    Sunny, perhaps it’s me not explaining what I mean properly.

    (1) You seem to be saying in your post that Gene implies that there was “no evidence” that Israeli fire hit the UN post. That is not what Gene was saying. He was saying that there was “no evidence” for Kofi Annan’s accusation that Israel deliberately set out to kill UN observers.

    (2) You said that Ehud Olmert has “admitted complicity”, but you now agree that he hasn’t, but you haven’t quite got round to correcting your post on that yet.

    (3) Gene is not saying that deliberately targeting the UN post was justified. What he is saying is that Israel did not deliberately target the post at all. He is saying that it was an accident, and that the mistake was understandable because Hezbollah often deliberately fire from near UN posts and therefore the UN might get caught up in the conflict.

    Whether that makes things any better is a matter of opinion. But if you’re going to fisk him you should fisk what he’s actually saying. And if you’ve got something wrong in your original post, you should correct it.

  17. Sid — on 27th July, 2006 at 8:35 am  

    I think its time to stop the “he said, you said”.

    I think its time for someone (the UN, USA, UK etc) to call for an immediate ceasefire.

  18. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 8:53 am  

    I think it’s time for someone to ask America to stop supplying millions of quids worth of aviation fuel to Israel

    When a bully brings a gun to school, send someone round to have a word with his dad. That’s just common sense

    Hands up who can apply some of that to sort out this horror

  19. Desi Italiana — on 27th July, 2006 at 9:10 am  

    Amreeka sped up the delivery of bombs to Israel while saying no to a ceasefire:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html

  20. Leon — on 27th July, 2006 at 10:14 am  

    I agree with Sid above, but given that Israels military masters the US wont agree to it the killing will go on for weeks (going by latest reports)…

    Also anyone read the story about the US using a UK airport as a staging ground for delivery of the weapons?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm

  21. Leon — on 27th July, 2006 at 10:29 am  

    Israeli Attacks ‘Blessed’

    Most European leaders wanted Israel to halt its attacks on Lebanese militants Hizbollah as soon as possible.

    But the US was willing to give Israel more time to punish the guerrilla group.

    Lebanon and its Arab allies had been demanding an end to the hostilities that have seen many parts of Lebanese capital Beirut reduced to rubble.

    Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon told Army Radio: “We received permission, in effect, from the world – part of it gritting its teeth and part of it granting its blessing – to continue the operation, this war, until Hizbollah’s presence is erased in Lebanon and it is disarmed.”

  22. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:11 am  

    Katy Newton: Stop apologizing and rationalising for Zionists murderers. The fact that you are doing the ‘explaining’ for Harry’s Place already shows that there are serious issues with your regard for human life.

  23. Dinesh Patel — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:40 am  

    we make excuses for 7/7 terrorist, 9/11, madrid etc

  24. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:47 am  

    “Flying big fuck-off airplanes into a region where there or may or not may be a handful of blokes that pissed you off but killing hundreds of women, children and innocent observers is not a fucking accident. It’s cold-blooded cunting murder ”
    Actually, a region where there definitely are “blokes” who fired unaimed missiles into Israel and killed Israeli civilians and kidnapped two Israelis from within Israel’s borders and who are deliberately positioning themselves among “women, children and innocent observers ” as protection. You could argue that the deaths are disproportional to the aims intended, but if this were “cold-blooded cunting murder” the dead would be in thousands or tens of thousands.

  25. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

    Roger, with all due respect, fuck off mate. The two Israelis they kidnapped were soldiers, you know, testosterone fulelled gimps that sign up to kill and die and, yes, get kidnapped too. To retaliate in such a vicious way, with fuck-all intelligence about their precise location, knowing hundreds of innocent civilians will die is not a strategic act associated with fair fighting. It took the death of four innocent UN observers for them to get nervous. The hundreds of women and children (and men by the way) who have sod all to do with the hisbollocks meant nothing to them.

    The longer you support the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in the hope you’ll catch the bad guys, the more you sound ridiculous when you berate the bombers that terrorise you so.

    It’s like sorting out the school bully by blowing up all the schools in the neighbourhood

  26. Geezer — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

    Yes it is all an “accident”. When the UN peace keepers pleaded for their safety ten times over the radio directly to the Israeli gunners they “accidentally” didn’t listen to them. Then the F-16 came over and “accidentally” bombed a building that has been known UN operating base for 30 years.

    The poor IDF then “accidentally” shelled the UN rescue teams trying to retrieve the bodies of their comrades.

    Come on people “accidents” happen all the time it’s just the Israeli Army seems to get more than its fair share…. :)

  27. Leon — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:30 pm  

    The one sided way Israel gets treated is telling; if any other army (bar maybe the US and possibly UK) did what they did there would be serious consequences.

    This isn’t a war, it’s aggression, it’s practically verging on terrorism. The death ratio speaks volumes about the power at play: 10-1 against Lebanon.

  28. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:30 pm  

    It’s right up there with ’she got raped but she was wearing a short skirt.’

    There is a difference between wearing a short skirt and deliberately targeting civilians which is what Hezbollah do. They use women, children and now UN “peacekeepers” as human shields. If these are killed, the blood is on Hezbollah’s hands.

    I hope Israel destroys every last one of these vermin. And Hamas too.

  29. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:32 pm  

    The one sided way Israel gets treated is telling

    Yes, but not in the way you mean. Al BBCra – remember Barbara Plett weeping at the death of the aids-riddled terrorist Arafish – is laughably pro-Arab.

  30. Don — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    Option 1. Israelis are cold blooded psychopaths bent on the slaughter of civilians.

    Option 2. Israel is carrying out a legitimate act of self defence and has no responsibility for civilian casualties.

    Option 3. No third option is permitted.

    For an eminently measured and considered view, check out Shuggy;

    http://modies.blogspot.com/2006/07/lebanese-proportions.html

  31. El Cid — on 27th July, 2006 at 12:45 pm  

    One small point bananabrain
    I think you’re being overly sensitive about Dunkerque analogy.
    It means a lot more to the British than anyone else. Or are we going to cut out all references to WW2 whenever Israel involved.
    Perhaps we should allow CNN’s Wolf Biltzer to comment on Middle East.
    Don’t wish to be mean, but Holocaust only part of WW2.
    That aside, I see some hope in a lot of what you said.

  32. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:06 pm  

    “Roger, with all due respect, fuck off mate. The two Israelis they kidnapped were soldiers, you know, testosterone fulelled gimps that sign up to kill and die and, yes, get kidnapped too.”
    Actually, they were conscripts, not “sign ups”. Apart from that, not all soldiers are “testosterone fuelled gimps” all the time and even “testosterone fuelled gimps” have rights. Hizbullah too are presumably “testosterone fuelled gimps”, with the firther belief that they are obeying god’s orders and a habit of taking cover among civilians.

    “To retaliate in such a vicious way, with fuck-all intelligence about their precise location, knowing hundreds of innocent civilians will die is not a strategic act associated with fair fighting. It took the death of four innocent UN observers for them to get nervous. The hundreds of women and children (and men by the way) who have sod all to do with the hisbollocks meant nothing to them.”
    Except that Hizbullah hid among them. Unfair fighting applies on both sides. As the UN’s purpose was to monitor a ceasefire that no longer existed the observers should not have been there still. They allowed Hizbullah to operate from close to their positions without stopping them. If they could not stop them they should have acknowledged failure and left.

    “The longer you support the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in the hope you’ll catch the bad guys, the more you sound ridiculous when you berate the bombers that terrorise you so.”
    I don’t “support the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in the hope you’ll catch the bad guys”. I think that the Israelis have been stupid enough to be tempted to do that and wicked enough to do it. However, I also think that there is difference among crimes and that there is a difference between killing innocent people because the enemy are hidden among them and killing innocent people without regard for their innocence. The Israelis have committed the first crime and not the second.

    “It’s like sorting out the school bully by blowing up all the schools in the neighbourhood”
    No. it’s like dealing with a gangster hidden in a block of flats by blowing up the flats. The harm done is disprportionate to the intended good, but it is not deliberate and wanton destruction. There are comparatives even among atrocities.

  33. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:15 pm  

    yes yes – to me that sort of attitude/rationalization of murder ( oh well it wasn’t murder, it was just something we had to do to get to our end goal x ) is no different to how terrorists morally justify ( to themselves if no one else) their killing – oh well its only incidental in the process of me trying to achieve end goal y – which they clearly think is honourable enough to excuse the deaths of x y and z in the meantime. and thinking of deaths as incidental makes it easier for people to deal with their conscience. But obviously it’s not incidental to the people who die and their families. i’ve said this before and it’s the sort of thing that is academic unless it’s one’s own life ( or nearest and dearest) at stake.

    but of course, each ‘side’ will always try and justify and legitimize killing in favour of their goals, so hardly a suprise.

  34. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:23 pm  

    hehe heh re: the accident. well i suppose it depends on what one means by accident! i suppose they didn’t intend to kill the UN observers, hey after all im sure they don’t intend to kill anyone apart from hizbollah, but honey if you’re gonna drop bombs from on high i suppose you’ve factored in the ‘accidental’ into your intentions…and you don’t really care..so back to square one. oh sorry we didn’t intend to kill you but we did anyway..too bad!

    shame shit happens each time there’s a war. god you’d think people would learn – NO ONE EVER BENEFITS FROM VIOLENCE. maybe in the short term, but in the long run? you can win the battle but lose the war.

    of course i find it amusing that one is expected to condemn ‘terrorism’ ( otherwise one is a terrorist sympathizer and probably a terrorist) but when it comes to ‘war’ oh you can take sides. ( and still retain some sort of ‘credibility’ and not be looked at as if one is a monster)

    sounds like the human race still hasn’t got the hang of the whole ‘universal’ human rights thing.

  35. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:27 pm  

    “I hope Israel destroys every last one of these vermin. And Hamas too.”

    so if you think someone is vermin that gives you the right to destroy them? :-) sounds like ‘terrorist’ thinking to me.

    in any case i don’t see why if one condemns israel’s action some ppl assume that must mean one then automatically ‘supports’ Hezbollah. Or to assume that one one doesn’t condemn Hezbollah’s use of violence as well. Obviously if you’re a rational humanist sort of person you’d realize it’s all RUBBISH. who suffers? civilians on all ‘sides’. real people, not abstract entities of ‘us’ and ‘them’. what ‘us’ and ‘them’ have in common is everyone’s got something to lose.

  36. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    “NO ONE EVER BENEFITS FROM VIOLENCE. maybe in the short term, but in the long run?”
    The problem is that unless people use violence in the short term there often isn’t a long run. Unless you are willing to be an absolute pacifist and accept the consequences of that attitiude then you accept that violence is sometimes necessary and that people only peripherally involved or uninvolved will die too. It is not a matter of “good and bad” but of “bad and more bad”.

  37. j0nz — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    Hizbollah set up camp next to UN observers all the time. They did nothing in 2000 as they say Hizbollah kidnap 2 Israeli soldiers.

    What an absolutley childish outburst from Kofi Anan. Gobsmacking really. Kofi could have withdrawn those UN observers and he didn’t

  38. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

    yes that’s the problem of war. Who takes the responsiblity for ‘civilian casualties’? No one = precisely. And by the time anyone tries to pin ‘responsibility’ it’s too late anyway.

    and this is precisely why wars are crap.

    after all – ‘civilian’ casualties to anyone not involved in the war may sound like a ‘side’ issue..something you can easily detach yourself from. reduce it to figures..dehumanize it. why not – the nazis did it during the holocaust.

  39. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:35 pm  

    Easy for you to say Roger, you ain’t sitting in South Lebanon are ya? for a lot of ‘em there ain’t much hope of the ‘long -term’ so its all a lot of TOSH.

    :-)

  40. j0nz — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:36 pm  

    “NO ONE EVER BENEFITS FROM VIOLENCE. maybe in the short term, but in the long run?”

    Except the allied victory over fascism, Union over Confederates and Democracy over brutal communism… :)

  41. Sunny — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:37 pm  

    “There is a difference between wearing a short skirt and deliberately targeting civilians which is what Hezbollah do.”

    Oh I’m sorry Old Pickler, did you miss the stats on top detailing how many civilians the IDF bombing has killed?

  42. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:40 pm  

    or – and i know i’m getting personal here – i can see what you’re saying -theoretically – but can you see what i’m saying Roger – that Again – abstract discussions aside – if you’re one of the people who might have to deal with the consequences of the ‘violence that is “necessary” – you ain’t going to be very pleased about it?

    of course this is the problem – some of us have realized this is all unfair and its all a gamble – until its our own lives we have to ‘sacrifice’. cos that’s the deal – if we’re not the victim, that’s good, cos we know – somewhere else – is someone paying the price. as long as it isn’t us, we can have the luxury of sitting around theorizing.

    touche. as long as we realize how hypocritical this all is. ( i.e. if it were our own precious little lives involved)

    enjoy your lives everyone while you still got it.

  43. Benjamin — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:42 pm  

    Ehud Olmert has not “admitted complicity”.

    Yes he has. He’s admitted it was Israel’s mistake. He expressed regrets. In other words Israel is complicit in that error.

    Complicit:
    Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime

    Not to difficult to grasp, surely?

  44. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:43 pm  

    Anyways. On another oh so cheery note – doing a Cassandra and all that – at this rate soon the US will have ‘legitimate’ reasons to invade the UK – and certainly at the very least bomb London. why given all the ‘Londonistani’ jokes and the fact that Tony hasn’t managed to quell terrorism here why surely we’re a legit target.

  45. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:46 pm  

    what will we do then?

    deplore the fact that someone said ‘oh but it was a legitimate use of violence, in the long run we had to.. shame about all those londoners…but hey – WE DROPPED LEAFLETS – and you know what – that kinda makes it okay, right?’

    ah well some people don’t get/or appreciate satire very much..so i suppose i’d better stop. and before anyone’s feelings get hurt. ;-)

  46. Tim Sewell — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:47 pm  

    “NO ONE EVER BENEFITS FROM VIOLENCE”

    Well, apart from the whole of Western Europe when it was liberated from the Nazis, or did the Allies just negotiate the Germans out of it?

    I’m not saying the situations are even similar, but had to respond to a rather studentish analysis of how the world works.

    As to the UNIFIL tragedy – if the Israelis deliberately targeted the UN post for any other reason than that they were coming under fire from within it then that was a crime and those responsible should be tried. If they were coming under fire from within the post, which some reports are suggesting (but which I find unlikely) then they had no choice but to attack it. If it was an accident, the most likely explanation, then they should apologise fully, compensate the bereaved and move on, learning a lesson and being considerably more careful if they want to keep the support that many have for their stated aim of disabling Hezbollah.

  47. Sid — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:47 pm  

    I’ll never understand the logic that justifies bombing of civilians (and civilian infrastructure) because terrorists “are hidden among them”. Isn’t the nature of terrorism basically that they come from within these civilians.

    So was the bombing of Ireland ever considered because the IRA were hidden among the people of County Armagh?

  48. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 1:59 pm  

    You could equally argue that because the nature of terrorism is that they hide among civilians then it is perfectly justifiable to bomb the civilian population indiscriminately. If you are willing to wipe out the entire civilian population it is an effective way of defeating terrorists.

    Sonia, yes I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately it is because people are emotional and worked up that they hide among their kinfolk and fire a missile. It is because they emotionally wrought that they allow their cousins to hide among them. It is because they are angerd that people drop bombs on other people because they are the sort of people who would let terrorists hide among them. The calculus of war means that all you can do is cold-bloodedly do as little harm as possible.

  49. Rakhee — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:05 pm  

    I hate to be the bearer of brutal facts, but the truth is there is one reason and one reason why killers kill. It gets them and their message noticed. And it works almost every single time, whether you’re a serial killer, a terrorist or a civilian fighting for a cause.

    Our discussions have a wonderful contradiction in them.

    On one hand we are disgusted and appalled by what is happening but on another, we are intrigued and curious and rightfully want to talk about it. But By giving it ‘air time’, we (along with the media, g’ment and all the other relevant orgs) are playing straight in to the hands of the people causing these deaths.

    We’re giving them the attention for which they crave.

  50. Sid — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:08 pm  

    Roger, if you’re willing to wipe out terrorism by indiscriminately wiping out entire populations, you first have to deny the faculty of cognisance of accepting that you yourself have committed an act of terrorism.

  51. Sunny — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:10 pm  

    The calculus of war means that all you can do is cold-bloodedly do as little harm as possible.

    Roger, I’m sorry but I don’t see that happening here. We have pronouncements by Israeli generals they wish to turn back the clock 20 years. We have Mossad officers saying this is a clash of civilisations. We have 400 dead and entire cities destroyed. And you’re talking about doing as little harm as possible? In what context exactly?

  52. Chairwoman — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:25 pm  

    Kismet Hardy – The majority of Israeli soldiers are conscripts doing their national service, not testosterone fuelled kimps who sign up to kill.

  53. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

    did you miss the stats on top detailing how many civilians the IDF bombing has killed?

    None deliberately. That’s the difference. Hezbollah deliberately kill civilians. They started this war. The blood of Lebanese civilians is on their hands.

  54. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:34 pm  

    In any case, who really cares about the UN? Bunch of lefties and lickers of Arab arses.

  55. Gene — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    Katy Newton, you made it about as clear as anyone could. Thanks for trying.

  56. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

    the sad thing is of course that the lesson that tends to come out of situations like this is – have yourself a strong army so your neighbours don’t fuck you over. this is clearly what every country is being encouraged to think and what does it result in but an arms race and a militarized world. yes of course i can see the ins and outs of having to defend yourself when attacked etc. and people in those situations thinking its valid to fight back of course. but it still remains overall that this is not a pleasant state of affairs.

    but with the nuclear option what does this mean for international relations? so lebanon could be sitting there thinking damn if we’d had nuclear maybe this wouldn’t be happening. ( haven’t we always heard lots about the ‘nuclear’ deterrent) so if everyone who currently hasn’t nuclear decides they’d better go for it – where does that leave us then?

  57. Sunny — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:46 pm  

    Old Pickler, don’t hold back. Just say it, you want the UN offices bombed too right?

    Katy and Gene – I have clarified the original post, but stand by what I said.

  58. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:47 pm  

    yes and i feel sorry for the israeli soldiers ( and their mommas) too – it’s hardly pleasant for them. as chairwoman pointed out above, it’s not like they have much of a choice being in the army.

  59. Don — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:49 pm  

    In a general context, Roger is quite right. Sometimes there are wars, and those conducting them are responsible for any civilian casualties. Sometimes these responsibilities are taken very seriously, but even so the innocent die. Even the most meticulously humane commander must have an ‘acceptable’ number in mind.

    Is the IDF being meticulously humane? The available information suggests that they have crossed the line into being reckless of civilian casualties, or at least that their ‘acceptable’ number is very high indeed.

    It could still be argued that the IDF, being reckless of civilian casualties, is still a moral step above Hizbullah who specifically seek them as an end in itself. But given the scale of what is happening, that argument is going to be difficult to make without special pleading.

    Israel has a right to defend itself and Hizzbollah has ultimate responsibility for the fact of the current situation. But the way Israel has chosen to conduct this campaign is inexcusable.

  60. Lopakhin — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:53 pm  

    Sid: So was the bombing of Ireland ever considered because the IRA were hidden among the people of County Armagh?

    Erm, no, not least because County Armagh, being part of the UK, was and is largely under British army control, so other methods were chosen. Unlike Southern Lebanon, which isn’t part of Israel.

  61. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:57 pm  

    well don that’s fine thinking that – i can see how that logic works. but then if that’s the case then one can’t go about simultaneously expecting everyone to condemn terrorism because they may be using a similar sort of logic to justify violence.

    ah well. people justify what they like anyway.

  62. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:58 pm  

    “Israel says the decision by a summit of world powers not to call for a halt to its Lebanon offensive has given it the green light to continue.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm

    ah – so now what? if we still fail to call for a cease-fire we’re culpable too? wonderful. right i guess we’d better put some pressure on our governments eh?

  63. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

    Chairwoman: “The majority of Israeli soldiers are conscripts doing their national service, not testosterone fuelled kimps who sign up to kill.”

    Yeah. These kids are pissed off that someone they know got done by a Palestinian. Knowing they can hold big fuck-off guns that they can use to kill some muslim fuckers and get their revenge drives them

    Same with Palestinian kids. Except no one gives them the licence to kill anyone. But they’re just as pissed off. And when they die, no one will care, which kinda makes them more pissed off

    Roger: “It’s like sorting out the school bully by blowing up all the schools in the neighbourhood”
    No. it’s like dealing with a gangster hidden in a block of flats by blowing up the flats.

    YOU”RE STILL KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE

    It’s depressing that it’s a cliche to say this but: muslim kids fight back = terrorism. Israeli kids fight back = war on terror

    I usually think I’m a bit of a dumb arse when it comes to politics. You guys and your pig-headed, hypocritical trait of missing the bleeding obvious makes me feel positively like Naom bleeding Chomsky

  64. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

    yeah lopakhin, but it’s not like they went and bombed Dublin because there were some ira folks hiding out there is it… Cos that would be more of an apt analogy, wouldn’t you say?

  65. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:01 pm  

    Old Pickler – I don’t believe your viewpoint should go unacknowledged. At least you don’t dissemble, unlike Gene’s blog.

    “In any case, who really cares about the UN? Bunch of lefties and lickers of Arab arses.”

    This is precisely the problem – you do not value the UN. Israel never has. And the US does not.

    The UN gets in the way of things – sort of.

    And therein lies the justification for bombing the UN bunker.

    Outcome – further diminish UN role in any mediation, stop anybody stepping in to fill the role of peacekeeper, at least in the short-term. You could argue this little ‘error’ was another way of delaying a ceasefire.

  66. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:03 pm  

    “kill some muslim fuckers”..

    ah but there are lots of people in lebanon who aren’t muslim…

  67. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:08 pm  

    Sonia, the suburbs and cities being flattened are predominantly muslim. An element of divide and rule. Divide the Christians from the Muslims.

    But support for Hizbollah is growing across whole of the Lebanon. A miscalculation? Who knows.

  68. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:13 pm  

    hmm Beirut is the capital and has a good mix of the population. in any case this has nothing to do with religion but of course has been turned into that. obviously support for hizbollah has grown – it would be very surprising if it didn’t. as all military strategists know, a common ‘enemy’ feeling tends to engender sympathy between people. bombs falling out of the sky on to our heads might make us feel that way too.

  69. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:15 pm  

    And when they die, no one will care,

    You’re joking. There are millions of bleeding heart lefties and millions of Muslims who go into paroxysms about the “poor” “Palestinians”. They care so much that, when there aren’t enough real Palestinians to bleat about, they invent a “massacre” like Jenin. The same lefties and Muslims happily ignore the millions of blacks slaughtered by Arab Muslims in Darfur.

    The idea that the “plight” – mostly self inflicted – of the “Palestinians” is ignored is enough to make a cat laugh.

  70. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:17 pm  

    Personally I don’t see the point of comparing the ratio of the dead on either side. There are many ways in which this war is asymmetrical, this is but one. What the world seems to be asking for is more dead Israeli’s to make this a “proportional war”, if the death toll swung the other way we would be complaining about the terrorist organization that aims to defeat Democracy, Liberalism and the West.

    Perhaps the Israeli’s ought start putting people back into the homes being bombed?

    TFI

  71. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:18 pm  

    further diminish UN role in any mediation, stop anybody stepping in to fill the role of peacekeeper, at least in the short-term.

    Judging from their success in Rwanda, and their reputation as paedophiles and rapists, the world could do without UN “peacekeepers”.

  72. sonia — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:20 pm  

    ah and this from the Guardian:

    “We Europeans must never forget that we created the Middle East conflict” on historical responsibility

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1831150,00.html

  73. Vikrant — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:20 pm  

    Sonia, the suburbs and cities being flattened are predominantly muslim. An element of divide and rule. Divide the Christians from the Muslims.

    You seem to think that Lebanon is some sort of unity-in-diversity version of an Indian state. Lebanon was a Maronite majority country. Tensions were always high between Muslims and Christians precisely because of Hezbollah presence.

  74. Vikrant — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:21 pm  

    further diminish UN role in any mediation, stop anybody stepping in to fill the role of peacekeeper, at least in the short-term.

    Pray tell which conflict has UN ever solved?

  75. Don — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:26 pm  

    ‘…one can’t go about simultaneously expecting everyone to condemn terrorism’

    I don’t. I expect many people to support or excuse it. I find that depressing, but I expect it because I see it every day.

    I also expect there to be armed conflicts and for the innocent to die. I find that depressing too.

    Accepting the fact that we live in a violent and bloody world is not the same thing as being callous. And could you be a little more specific about what I was justifying?

  76. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:47 pm  

    Vikrant, ‘unity-in-diversity’ – what chance of that now? Exploiting old divisions are what is usually understood by divide and rule.

    “Tensions were always high between Muslims and Christians precisely because of Hezbollah presence.”

    How long since the existence of Hizbollah? I didn’t think they were around before Israeli invasion of 1982. Also I suggest you look up the role of the South Lebanese Army. Post-invasion.

    Either only muslim suburbs are being bombed or they are not. All the reports I’ve seen say they are. To the extent that a bombing of a christian area was reported as an exception.

    “Pray tell which conflict has UN ever solved?”

    The point I made was more as a way of keeping the UN out; and the effect of the attack is to stop anybody else rushing to volunteer their forces to join a peacekeeping force. Either that has happened or it hasn’t. I say it has and this will become more apparent.

    If there is any seriousness about having a ‘buffer’ force, it is more than likely Israel already knows what type of force it wants in place and my money is on the reprise of the South Lebanon Army – another militia.

    As for the effectiveness of the UN – that is determined by the membership of the UN, and in practise by the Security Council and predominantly by the US. As witnessed in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

  77. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

    Sonia, agree it has nothing to do with religion and is being turned into one.

  78. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:57 pm  

    “You’re joking. There are millions of bleeding heart lefties and millions of Muslims who go into paroxysms about the “poor” “Palestinians”.”

    I bet you know the number, if not the names, of the poor israelis that got hurt, killed and kidnapped in this despicable charade. How many palestinians do you actually give a shit about?

    Bleeding heart my arse. The pity of the liberals counts for jack shit when people have to live under the threat of regular air raids.

    Please bear one thing in mind: wannabe terrorists strapped with bombs regularly fuck up their mission. Big futuristic planes with star wars missiles funded by the most powerful nation on earth never fail to kill

  79. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    What were the UN doing leaving the unarmed observers at their post when a week ago they were reporting that Hisbollah were fighting from on top of their position and they were getting fired upon by both sides?

    The front line is no place for an unarmed observer. That’s where the really desperate people do the really unpleasant stuff. What do they expect to observe up there? They should have been pulled back a week ago, if not more.

  80. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:03 pm  

    Yes that’s right Bertie. The UN are always sticking their nose in places they shouldn’t. They got what they deserved etc

  81. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:05 pm  

    No, the dead blokes didn’t get what they deserved. But the UN should be looking into it’s own procedures rather than accusing the IDF of deliberately targeting them. They shouldn’t have been there to target, deliberate or not.

  82. Arif — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

    Those of us who want to give the Israel (meaning its ministers) the benefit of the doubt, should equally give the benefit of the doubt to those who deny complicity in other attacks reported by the media. For example – to have accepted Bin Laden’s early denials of complicity in the WTC bombings and to accept Syria’s denials of complicity in the assassination of Hariri, Libya’s denials of complicity in Lockerbie bombings, Sudan’s denials of complicity with the Janjaweed.

    Those who assume Israeli bombing of the UN is intentional should also refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to Bin Laden, Syria, Libya etc.

    If we find it difficult to be consistent, that would suggest we are playing favourites. Initially I’d assumed that Israel didn’t mean to hit the UN and believed their foreign minister, but since getting the evidence of how often the IDF had been warned and been made aware of the UN post, how it had UN emblazoned in large letters on every wall, and that the UN was assured that even though Hizbollah launches rockets from nearby this building would not be threatened, how much the IDF have presented their bombing as pinpoint accurate, and put it together with a pattern of hitting clearly marked relief vehicles… I don’t think I can keep any integrity if I were to insist on believing the IDF did not mean to hit the UN.

    It is hard because it still seems counter-intuitive, because I don’t see what they gain by doing this intentionally. But then I find a lot that happens in war counter-intuitive. There are theories to suggest that Bin Laden, Syria, Libya and Sudan are being framed, and so there will be theories that Israel is being framed. It is possible they were, but the important thing is to judge the evidence without coming to conclusions based on our prejudices.

  83. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:14 pm  

    ” They shouldn’t have been there to target, deliberate or not.”

    Shame the Lebanese children don’t have the luxury of that kind of forewarning and forethought

    Arif, I like you so much. i’m off to the pub to drown my sorrows and pass off all your ideas as my own. I might spice it up with a few animals but you seem the type not to begrudge me that license

    Take care people and pray for the innocents

  84. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:15 pm  

    how many palestinians do you actually give a shit about?

    None.

  85. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:16 pm  

    “Is the IDF being meticulously humane? The available information suggests that they have crossed the line into being reckless of civilian casualties, or at least that their ‘acceptable’ number is very high indeed. ”
    I agree, Don. One worrying aspect is that the IDF has shown steadily less concern for non-combatant casualties over the years since the first intifada and more brutality to completely univolved civilians. The problem with odern munitions is that collateral damage is autmatically very high indeed. If you can hit a target very precisely with a 1000 pound bomb you are more likely to use it than you would if it was a random shot, but- even if the info you base your attack on is good- you’re still likely to kill a lot of other people. That’s what happens in Sinai. In lebanon i think the israelis probably have a lower level of information so they have a yet lower level of acceptibility. They are still killing many fewer people than they would if they were bombing indiscriminately, but…

  86. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:16 pm  

    Old Pickler, you took the cock right out of my mouth

    This isn’t about right or wrong

    It’s about hatred

  87. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    “Those who assume Israeli bombing of the UN is intentional should also refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to Bin Laden, Syria, Libya etc.”
    In each case we did so. We do not know how the UN post was attacked. It could hasve been accident, incompetence, failure to communicate or a deliberate act by a comparatively junior person. The attack on the WTC, however, required extensive and co-ordinated fore-knowledge, which made it probable that it was approved at a fairly high level. In the case of Lockerbie there may well be background skullduggery- the men concerned may not be guilty of that crime. With Hariri’s murder the fact that the Syrian government did not purge their secret services is evidence that, even if they were ignorant of the plan beforehand, they feel bound to acquiesce in it now.

  88. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    ” They shouldn’t have been there to target, deliberate or not.”

    Shame the Lebanese children don’t have the luxury of that kind of forewarning and forethought

    That’s right mate. But they weren’t put unprotected and in harms way by the UN, were they? Well, not directly, anyway.

    The UN observer posts, if you read the briefings, are currently only able to observe how many times they get shot at each day. They can’t protect anyone, and they’re not going to see any war crimes. So why has the UN still got them there?

  89. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:30 pm  

    Tim Sewell wrote: “As to the UNIFIL tragedy – if the Israelis deliberately targeted the UN post for any other reason than that they were coming under fire from within it then that was a crime and those responsible should be tried. If they were coming under fire from within the post, which some reports are suggesting (but which I find unlikely) then they had no choice but to attack it.”

    It’s not all that unlikely. If the Hez lads are in deep shit, many will suddenly find that martyrdom can perhaps wait a little. They know the UN observers are unarmed and therefore unable to stop them entering the post. They also know – or thought they did – that the IDF wouldn’t risk firing near the blue flag.

    Getting under that flag means living a little longer, and the boys in that situation could literally not care less about international diplomacy.

  90. Kismet Hardy — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:33 pm  

    “They can’t protect anyone, and they’re not going to see any war crimes. So why has the UN still got them there?”

    I dunno. Maybe when there’s a war where one side is wiping out loads of innocent people in a bloodlust and the ‘civilised’ world thinks it’s okay to do so and bury their head in the bush about the true extent of the atrocity, it’s kinda nice to think there are people out there who risk their lives just to see it and maybe tell us about it

    You know? People who give a shit and really try to help? Not many of them round at the mo so I’ll forgive you for thinking that such an alien concept

    Right, beer

  91. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

    Stop thinking those soldiers died nobly fulfilling their mission. I bet they went out cursing the pointlessness and futility of it.

  92. Arif — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:36 pm  

    Roger, I accept that you are being consistent, and I accept there are grounds for doubt. But if the media is being more sceptical of State denials than you, at least there is a kind of consistency from them as well. It is just a way of checking whether people are grappling with the issue or assuming the moral superiority of one side.

  93. Roger — on 27th July, 2006 at 4:52 pm  

    “Maybe when there’s a war where one side is wiping out loads of innocent people in a bloodlust and the ‘civilised’ world thinks it’s okay to do so and bury their head in the bush about the true extent of the atrocity, ”
    There’s an interesting moral dilemma here. Israel is killing more people than Hizbullah and is probably not doing all it could to avoid killing civilians. On the other hand, Hizbullah is deliberately positiong itself so that civilians will be killed if Hizbullah is attacked and Hizbullah’s own missiles are too inaccurate to distinguish between military or civilians. Israel is killing many more civilians than Hizbullah, ‘though not as many as it could. Hizbullah isn’t killing as many civililans as Israel but is killing as many as it can.
    so, moralists, which is worse?

  94. bananabrain — on 27th July, 2006 at 5:01 pm  

    before anyone starts – i am NOT trying to defend killing innocent people. however, i think you’re failing to see the basic tactic behind the hizbollah’s use of civilian areas. part of their aim is MEDIA VICTORY – and this they are duly achieving, because the israelis have never really seen the point of PR.

    sunny – if you think that 400 casualties (and i’m not disputing the figure, though people in the area have a history of lying about stuff like this) is a lot, it is. but if you think the israelis had an aim of causing casualties, you must be absolutely joking. what other army has sent emails, text messages and leaflets to its intended targets, warning them that they were going to attack?? i mean, seriously? if the israelis were intending to kill a lot of civilians, they could have done a LOT worse and you know it. if you think that the israelis seriously intended to kill non-combatants, you absolutely don’t understand them. i agree that there is rarely very much crying over (i apologise for the horrible phrase but can’t think of a more sensitive way of putting it) collateral damage, but this is, when all is said and done, an attempt to incapacitate a terrorist group with thousands of missiles sitting just across the border, who have demonstrated a capacity to shut down the north of israel and make half a million people (approximately 1/8 of the population) flee their homes. no state could be expected to put up with this.

    if you expect me to know the soldiers’ names, you bet i do. i am praying for them and communal prayers are also being offered for an end to hostilities and a return of all captives. i also have a friend whose cousin is in the unit that the two in the north were taken from. it was done on the day they were expecting to be relieved by another unit and they were packing to leave. “testosterone-fuelled gimps”? hardly. “bloodlust” to kill people? i know one of the people that works in air-force targeting. he sits in a small room on a base analysing satellite photos and intelligence. he’s not sitting there watching al-jazeera or al-manar and going “bastards! let’s take ‘em out!!” he is NOT, repeat NOT, being told to target civilians or UN personnel! it is damfool comments like those i quote that show the depth of ignorance about this situation.

    fortunately, rather than despair i shall direct you to the wonderful egyptian blogger “sandmonkey” – who has an apt analysis of the situation:

    http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/07/26/poke/

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  95. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 5:06 pm  

    Old Pickler

    I am deeply impressed with your honesty. What would be even more interesting is how many others are there like you hiding amongst the civilian population.

  96. Desi Italiana — on 27th July, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

    Sunny:

    Thanks for taking care of the mishap.

  97. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

    Expressing contempt for a people who elected a bunch of terrorists committed to the genocide of its neighbours is hardly akin to terrorism itself.

    It’s fair to say that I care as much about the “Palestinians” as they do about themselves – sweet FA. They are followers of a murderous paedophile and committed to a death cult. They deliberately target civilians. They don’t work and contribute nothing whatsoever to the world except terrorism.

    Give a shit about them? Nope.

  98. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 5:57 pm  

    Whose War Is It Anyway?

    “The neocon resurgence

    The delusional US mindset that made the Iraq war a disaster has resurfaced in Lebanon

    Sidney Blumenthal
    Thursday July 27, 2006
    The Guardian”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1830930,00.html

  99. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 6:00 pm  

    Old Pickler

    How many? And how do you recruit?

  100. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 6:05 pm  

    Expressing contempt for a people who elected a bunch of terrorists committed to the genocide of its neighbours is hardly akin to terrorism itself.

    Old pickler: the same logic is used by bin laden to target ppl who who have democratically chosen a leader. It is people like you and bin laden who are an insult to humanity and blot on the face of the earth. And then you have the nerve to call others ‘murderous’.

  101. Ravi Naik — on 27th July, 2006 at 6:25 pm  

    “I am deeply impressed with your honesty. What would be even more interesting is how many others are there like you hiding amongst the civilian population.”

    That really is of no importance. The real story is that Hamas and Hezbollah do not care about the Lebanese or Palestinian people. After all they glorify the death of their own people for their petty cause. Israel’s actions are abysmal, killing and terrorising the population, which will provide fresh recruits for the next two generations. Add a clueless US president, and what you have are civilians in morgues and hospitals.

  102. Shuggy — on 27th July, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

    Unsurprisingly, Gene over at Harry’s Place is busy trying to make excuses for the deaths of four UN observers killed by Israeli bombing.

    I think Gene was arguing for the idea the Israelis made a mistake was plausible. I’m not sure he’s right about that but you’ve stated this in a post called, “Making excuses for murder” – which is not the same thing. One of the things I really like about this blog is that it avoids the hysteria, denunciations and accusations that occupy much of the blogosphere. Don’t choose this time to depart from form. Please.

  103. Ravi Naik — on 27th July, 2006 at 6:53 pm  

    “but if you think the israelis had an aim of causing casualties, you must be absolutely joking.”

    If Israel knew about terrorist cells in its own terrority, would it air bomb those targets? No – because of collateral damages in regard to its own people. This is what we are talking about – the complete disregard of human life through excessive force. Hezbollah has taken the Lebanese hostages, and Israel is trigger-happy targetting Hezbollah but taking the hostages down as well. That Israel didn’t aim the hostages in the first place can no longer serve as an excuse. This is immoral.

  104. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:09 pm  

    The real story is that Hamas and Hezbollah do not care about the Lebanese or Palestinian people.

    ravi naik: So you sitting comfy in your chair know more about how much Hamas and Hezbollah care about Palestinians and Lebanese? Irrespective of your views on (im)morality of their actions, the fact is that both groups have wide spread grass root support and care about their ppl. ppl seem to have forgotten that it was Hezbollah that was responsible for driving out Israel from Lebenon. Bigots like oldpickler ofcourse deny the Jenin massacre among others. Perhaps he also thinks that the Israelis just sauntered into a ‘land with out a people for a people with out a land’.

  105. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:11 pm  

    The more schools you build, the more grass roots support you get, I suppose.

  106. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:15 pm  

    “That really is of no importance. ”

    It is of great importance. OP spends an awful lot of effort in disseminating her views, which to right-minded people are repulsive. Unless you are plugged into the same propaganda machine.

    How big that machine is of vital importance and how it is growing and how it is to be wrested. That is key – if we are to seek a comprehensive peace.

    Fundamentalist campaigners such as OP are there to provide sustenance for the immoral.

  107. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:24 pm  

    Refresh; you give old pickler too much credit. People have started to see through the immoral propaganda. Now that the truth is dawning on more people, oldpickler and co are in a state of frenzy.

  108. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:26 pm  

    Correction – should have read

    “Except to those plugged into the same propaganda machine.”

  109. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:28 pm  

    seekeroftruth – I do hope you are right. But can we rest?

    Old Pickler reminds me on one of those ghouls from ‘Dawn to Dusk’. Breeding somewhere, and George Clooney has yet to find them.

  110. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:28 pm  

    Perhaps, but more people aren’t plugging into the machine each day at random. If you’re going to stop the machine, you have to cut the fuel off. People don’t like feeling threatened – it drives them to some unpalpable decisions. This applies to all sides of course, so we are left with the decision as to which side is fairly rational, and which bases their views in propaganda.

  111. Bert Preast — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:34 pm  

    From today’s UNIFIL press briefing:

    “It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the
    vicinity of four UN positions at Marwahin, Alma Ash Shab, Brashit, and At
    Tiri.”

    http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr011.pdf

    So the Hez are still using four UN positions to fire from, three of which are the same as they were firing from in yesterday’s report. So basically, the UN is unable to stop their positions being used by Hez as convenient firebases.

    I’m not at all surprised they’re being deliberately targeted. Get these people out, for fuck’s sake.

  112. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 7:57 pm  

    Old pickler: the same logic is used by bin laden to target ppl who who have democratically chosen a leader.

    Sorry, who am I targeting exactly?

    In any case, there is a difference. Civilised countries like the US, the UK and Israel don’t choose medieval savages and followers of a murderous paedophile as their leader. And most people in those countries get off their arse and work rather than plotting jihad or sending their children – breeding being one of their few activities other than murder – to blow themselves up.

  113. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 8:00 pm  

    And I’m pleased that you think I have so much influence. Perhaps I can “recruit” back to common sense some of the useful idiots who glorify paedophile-worshippers and think the “Palestinians” can do no wrong.

  114. Ken — on 27th July, 2006 at 8:27 pm  

    Bananabrain wrote
    “what other army has sent emails, text messages and leaflets to its intended targets, warning them that they were going to attack??”

    By doing so the IDF is even ready to give away the element of surprise. If Israel’s intention was to kill as many civilians or even if they had a high number of acceptable collateral damage, then why would they even bother to go into Bint Jbeil (the hezbollah stronghold) with just tanks and commando units. Why not just bomb it into oblivion!

    Also most typical news media reports carry only the number of Israeli military and Lebanese civilian casualties, no mention is made of the number of Hezbollah fighters killed.

    e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5221384.stm

    Could it be that the number of civilian casualties includes the number of hezbollah fighters? Since the hezbollah fighters often take cover in and attack from civilian areas, it is quite possible. (Shows just how much regard the Hezbollah has for Lebanese civilians)

    Also ignored is the fact that most reporters are being fed what is deemed suitable by the Hezbollah propagandists. CNN’s Anderson Cooper blogs about it here
    http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/07/our-very-strange-day-with-hezbollah.html

    As far as Israel’s response is concerned, what should it have done? What should its response be to repeated provocation and attacks?

    Hezbollah has at times claimed that they want to secure the freedom for the Lebanese prisoners and get the Shebaa Farms back. The Hezbollah also claim that the Shebaa Farms territory belongs to Lebanon, while the UN has ruled that it belongs to Syria. If Shebaa Farms is handed back and Syria takes control. Will the Hezbollah take up arms against Syria? Doesn’t seem quite likely.

    They also want the destruction of Israel. Well, suppose that happens, Israel is no longer a state, the Israelis are refugees and migrate or surprisingly assimilated into the Arab whole, what then? Do we see a unified middle east or will the sunni’s and the shiites start killing each other then?

  115. Old Pickler — on 27th July, 2006 at 8:53 pm  

    Could it be that the number of civilian casualties includes the number of hezbollah fighters?

    Can a duck swim?

  116. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 9:52 pm  

    Forget the apologia that is Harry’s Place. Some real, solid material on Lenin’s blog.

    http://leninology.blogspot.com/

  117. Don — on 27th July, 2006 at 10:55 pm  

    I got as far when he ‘ hails the noble resistance heroes in the ranks of the patriotic and Islamic resistance who are writing with their blood the most splendid pages in the history of our people…’

    Does the real, solid material come later, or is that it?

  118. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:10 pm  

    hahaha – you are funny. Well, you’ve cheered me up.

    I believe that must be a press release Lenin quotes from the Lebanese Communist Party.

    Read on.

  119. Refresh — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:13 pm  

    Seriously though

    Fascinating material.

  120. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:29 pm  

    oldpickler: A whole nation has been persecuted in 1940′s on the basis of unauthenticated myths. If you are so obsessed with paedophilia, examine http://answering-christianity.com/age3.htm esp the sacred Bible for paedophilia in the ‘well respected ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’. Thing is that it is bigots like who throw oil in the fire. From what I understand, pickled politics is visited by relatively sensible ppl who want to improve the situation rather than get into senseless slanging maches. Who is saying Palestinians cannot do wrong? Most of us have a critical stance to any injustice by any one. However, it appears you cannot make any contribution on this forum.

    ‘most people in those countries get off their arse and work rather than plotting jihad or sending their children’:

    really? as if the whole muslim world has enrolled in alqaeda. how different are those messed up ppl from southern texans spraying bullets on Iraqi civilians or a newyork zionist killing Palestinians kids as part of the ‘respectable IDF’?

  121. Ravi Naik — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:36 pm  

    “So you sitting comfy in your chair know more about how much Hamas and Hezbollah care about Palestinians and Lebanese?”

    Yes, I do. Hamas, for instance, has organised suicide missions into Israel, with the intention to terminate any peace initiative for the last few years. It knows all too well what happens when suicide bombs are deployed in Israel. Hezbollah is operating on its own, not in the name of the Lebanese people. I can’t possibly see how the actions of this organisation and Hamas can possibly be interpreted as caring for their people.

    Specially not by someone with a nick like yours.

  122. Ravi Naik — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:39 pm  

    “The fact that you are doing the ‘explaining’ for Harry’s Place already shows that there are serious issues with your regard for human life.”

    And the fact that *YOU* are defending Hamas and Hezbollah – in your comfy chair miles away from the conflict – takes away your right for criticising others regarding how they view human life.

  123. seekeroftruth — on 27th July, 2006 at 11:56 pm  

    ravi naik: my comment was only on ‘the caring for their own people ‘ part. I am not defending these organization’s refusal for a negotiated peace and especially not Hamas’ unethical means of ‘warfare’. However that does not mean that an avg Hamas or Hezbollah militant wouln’t care for ‘his people’. Moreover Hezbolla
    has a better track record than Hamas in its means of warfare and has predominantly been a liberation army. Many of us have problems with some of its ideological visions but that does not change the fact that Hezbollah has enough popularity among the Shia in Lebenanon irrespective of that western media tries to portray.

  124. seekeroftruth — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:04 am  

    ravi naik: the same thing also holds true for IDF fighters who do care about ‘their’ people and act because they feel under seige. Question is that will both sides respect human life irrespective of whether it is Arab or Jewish. In that I think we both agree that there should be no discrimination and only way forward is peace.

  125. Ravi Naik — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:11 am  

    “Moreover Hezbolla has a better track record than Hamas in its means of warfare and has predominantly been a liberation army.”

    Given that Hezbollah’s mission is over for the last 6 years, why are they still active? Do they have a new mission?

    “…Hezbollah has enough popularity among the Shia in Lebenanon”

    That means nothing. Bush was very popular among Americans and was elected twice, even though we know the consequences of his actions.

  126. Katy Newton — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:25 am  

    “Katy Newton: Stop apologizing and rationalising for Zionists murderers. The fact that you are doing the ‘explaining’ for Harry’s Place already shows that there are serious issues with your regard for human life.”

    Bite me.

  127. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:34 am  

    seekeroftruth

    ‘southern texans spraying bullets on Iraqi civilians or a newyork zionist killing Palestinians kids ‘

    Well, seems you’ve foumd your truth.

  128. seekeroftruth — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:43 am  

    “That means nothing.”

    That does mean something. That means that Hezbollah cannot be ‘dismantled’ without massacres of civilians. You can’t dismantle Hamas/Hezbollah without having a long term political resolution of the whole mess. That is the problem. That means Israel needs to get guarantee of safety and Palestine needs to get their own state and US needs to stop meddling too much.

    “Do they have a new mission?”

    I hope not. It is hoped that it will totally transform into a non-violent political party. Hezbollah was formed specially during Israel-Lebonan war. It is plausible that they want to maintain themselves because of the following factors:

    -they might be still anxious to get back all their prisoners of war in the Israeli jail for the last 20 yrs
    - they keep a keen eye on the Palestine-Israel issue
    - they might still feel that Israel has ‘wider ambitions’ in the region and they want to act as a wall
    - they are popular among shias because of their welfare work and development.
    - lust for power and their ideological links with Iran surely is another factor.
    - moreover every1 is jumpy because of the escalation of violence all over middle east esp after the iraq war and war on terrorism.

    My point is that things are much more complex than the ‘civilized democracy vs barbaric terrorists’ reduction and we have to be more realist and measured in our approach. Otherwise US and Israel will be sowing seeds of hatred for the future.

  129. Sunny — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:48 am  

    Heh, I love Katy’s cut-the-crap attitude.

    Refresh – Lenin to be honest is as balanced as Gene is. They’re both covering up for their “own side” without looking at the broader picture. I’m sorry but if you think Lenin is going to provide you with any balance then you’re being as deluded as those who think Gene is providing balance.

  130. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:07 am  

    Sunny,

    I concur. This is by far the least interesting conflict the world has produced as far as I am concerned. I dont know much about what goes on in Lenin’s world. I’ve never been, but I am a regular at Harry Place and he had the nerve to ask why one commentator on the Hizbull-reali conflict had not much to say about a conflict that claims far more lives- the Dafur in Sudan. Why does he even need an answer to that question when he has spent so many post on the Hizbull-reali conflict while no ink, comparetively speaking has dealt with the Sudan. Bunch of assholes if you ask me.

    I wish people will be honest, some lives are far far more valueable than others. Lets not pretend otherwise.

    Pro-Isreali people dont value the lives of those in the Darfur than they do Jews or Isreali Jews. Muslims are far more bothered by what happens in the the Middle East in they are in any part of the world, except for the Takfiris. They seem to co-opt every conflict involving Muslims. Those Pro-Palestinian non Arab, non Muslims are far more insulted by whatever Isreal does in the Middle East than they are in any other conflict in the world.

  131. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:20 am  

    Old Pickler,

    “And most people in those countries get off their arse and work rather than plotting jihad or sending their children – breeding being one of their few activities other than murder – to blow themselves up.”

    I will assume you are talking about Muslim women and to what extent they procreate. Please dont lament how horrilbly Muslim women are treated and then talk about them like animals breeding for war. It is inconsistent. People dont breed, they have children. If you are going to regard Muslim women as animals, dont bother that they get beaten, cicurcised or marched ito burkahs. How else do you treat animals?

  132. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:23 am  

    Refresh,

    Old Pickler has got a Jewish boyfriend. She has got to keep up appearances. When she falls for some sweet talking Pakistani her tone will change. Typically female.

  133. Sid — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:27 am  

    HP and Lenin have some fucked up little game which they play against each other. They both bait each other constantly (Pro-War Left and Stopper Number One, yawn) and you can tell they know what buttons to press to kick the other off. They exist for each other like two disturbed siblings in a dysfunctional family.

  134. Sid — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:38 am  

    Don’t know why you bothered fisking Gene in this post, Sunny. Last thing I read by him on HP was when he equated, by means of insinuation, all London marchers (from last week) to full-blown anti-semitic Hizbullah terrorists. Silly ouanqére.

  135. Sunny — on 28th July, 2006 at 2:15 am  

    I’ve fallen in love with Bikhair.

  136. Desi Italiana — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:35 am  

    If we were to insert “Israelis” or “Jews” in the place of “Palestinians”, “Arabs”, and “Muslims” in Old Pickler’s comments, imagine what an uproar there would be…

    Good to see some folks here take issue with Old Pickler.

    But these kinds of sentiments (both explicitly or implicitly)against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are frequently voiced, and hardly anyone flinches. In contrast, if one simply criticizes Israel and its policies, a tremendous amount of indignant wrath is unleashed.

  137. Desi Italiana — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:41 am  

    Re: my comment above, lest someone misinterprets me, I would like to add that I would NOT like to see comments like Old Pickler’s on Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims replaced with Israelis and Jews.

  138. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:52 am  

    That old chestnut. If you replace Arabs with Jews in that context you get an absurdity. Jews and Israelis do not blow themselves up in pizza parlours. They are hard working not lazy and they do not have a religion founded by a paedophile that demands world conquest. Only a handful of ultra-orthodox Jews have a lot of children. The rest, rather than breeding like rabbits at the EU taxpayers’ expense, get off their arse and work. And they don’t whinge and moan and bleat.

    The analogy doesn’t work.

  139. Sid — on 28th July, 2006 at 8:33 am  

    Her hair is Harlowe gold
    Her lips sweet surprise
    Her hands are never cold
    She’s got Enoch Powell eyes
    She’ll turn her music on you
    You won’t have to think twice
    She’s pure as New York snow
    She got Enoch Powell eyes

  140. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 8:37 am  

    Guess that’s why the badly packed doner kebab hasn’t had a proper shag in years

  141. mirax — on 28th July, 2006 at 8:48 am  

    Old pickler is well-known for her hatred and trolling; when you engage with her, you are sinking to her depths. Simple.

    Her jewish, pakistani or martian boyfriend does not enter the picture as long as he is not posting similar shite on PP but that’s Bikhair for you: not a hate merchant but definitely unhinged.

  142. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 8:49 am  

    Good stuff from the rest of you — Refresh, Sunny, Ravi, even Bikhair
    But Kismet — have you lost the plot or something? So soldiers are just testosterone fueled gimps are they? For a woman, you seem to have a lot of testosterone yourself. You’ve got some serious issues matey.
    Suggest you go visit a few graveyards in northern France

  143. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:03 am  

    Sunny, Lenin is doing an excellent job of covering the war. Particularly his recent material. Judge for yourself.

    Sid, Lenin would do a better job of totally ignoring Harry’s Place, although I did enjoy the blog by Johng who dealt with it brilliantly: HP is a laughing stock.

    Bikhair: thanks for that. OP is a manifestation of the worst possible of all racisms. No redeeming feature for muslims, Arabs and Palestinians.

  144. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:07 am  

    Mirax, not so simple. Racists should be dealt with there and then. Its not often I see it happen here.

    Was that snipe at Bikhair really necessary, or even warranted?

  145. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:18 am  

    El Cid – good to see that sexism is alive and well. Strange on a forum where people get there knickers in a twist over “racism”. “Racism”, that is, against an evil ideology followed by people of all races.

    Bikhair is a bit loopy but harmless.

    By the way, I’ve nothing against Christian Arabs. As for “Palestinians” – they never existed before 1967 when the jihadists and the leftist useful idiot anti-semites took up their cause.

  146. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:19 am  

    Their, not there. Eeek.

  147. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:28 am  

    Vikrant, thought this might be of interest

    “Only Hizbullah can defend against an Israeli invasion

    Attempts to impose an international force would risk destroying Lebanon’s government and revive the danger of civil war

    Jonathan Steele in Beirut
    Friday July 28, 2006
    The Guardian”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1831960,00.html

    “Demonising Hizbullah as terrorists or Iranian and Syrian agents confuses the picture. Moreover, the only party that declined to take part in government, the Maronite Christians led by Michel Aoun, made a tactical alliance with Hizbullah. Since the Israeli attacks Aoun has been one of Hizbullah’s most vocal defenders.”

  148. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:34 am  

    my wife loves me, but then i give her ‘er oats

  149. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:36 am  

    Old Pickler

    And of course Israel did not exist until 1948. And that after the bribery for votes at the UN.

    Your concern is not ideological at all – it is all about Israel. As is the case with so many of the hate sites.

    The Right Wing Christian movement seeking to bring about the ‘Biblical’ Israel will then push ahead and insist all those Jews convert to Christianity. My question of course is what will you do to those jews who will not convert?

  150. Leon — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:36 am  

    HP and Lenin have some fucked up little game which they play against each other. They both bait each other constantly (Pro-War Left and Stopper Number One, yawn) and you can tell they know what buttons to press to kick the other off. They exist for each other like two disturbed siblings in a dysfunctional family.

    Well said.

  151. mirax — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:40 am  

    Refresh,

    Re: Pickler

    I have encountered and strongly attacked OP at HP over a year ago(and here at PP too on occasion)for her anti muslim bias as well as her diatribes against other ‘backward’ people (she doesn’t have a high opinion of african culture for eg). What I learnt is that it is a bloody complete waste of time as she is an attention whore and any interaction with/about her is just feeding the sickness.

    Re: Bikhair

    It was not a snipe. It was a very clear statement that she was crossing a line.

    Bikhair has written totally objectionable stuff here on PP and elsewhere on the net and she is not that different from OP on the attention-seeking front. Bikhair has been racist on occasion too and been pulled up for it by Rohin and others.

    Yes, Bikhair’s comment about OP’s supposed jewish bf is highly objectionable. Attack OP by any means but don’t sneakily slide in jew-lovin’ as a supposed motivation for OP’s misdeeds. This is racist. I also find Bikhair’s sexism – it is a constant stream of backward nonsense from her in this regard- highly irritating.

  152. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:42 am  

    The Right Wing Christian movement seeking to bring about the ‘Biblical’ Israel will then push ahead and insist all those Jews convert to Christianity. My question of course is what will you do to those jews who will not convert?

    I have no truck with those nutters. Jews have lived in what is now modern Israel continuously for thousands of years. When the Arab hordes invaded they had to live as dhimmis. Now they have their one tiny state – 0.002% of the Middle East, and, because they are hard working and talented, they have made a success of it.

    If the Arabs got this tiny bit of land back, in ten years time it would be a desert again.

  153. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:43 am  

    it is a constant stream of backward nonsense

    Naughty naughty – using the “b” word.

  154. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:45 am  

    he heeh OP –

    ” they do not have a religion founded by a paedophile that demands world conquest.”

    well that hardly matters! they appear to think their religion calls for the conquest of a certain particular piece of land…

    good one for pointing that out! :-)

  155. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:45 am  

    but in any case obviously ‘they’ is not really valid it’s not as if all israelis or jewish people are the same or think the same. no reason why they should is there?

  156. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:48 am  

    Mirax

    Fair enough.

  157. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:48 am  

    their religion calls for the conquest of a certain particular piece of land…

    Bit of a difference between claiming a tiny teeny weeny strip of land (the size of Wales) in which Jews have lived for thousands of years continuously, and which is 0.002% of the middle east, and wanting to conquer the whole world, which is what Islam commands Muslims to do.

    And the fact that Muslims and useful idiot lefties make such a colossal fuss about this miniscule bit of land shows that they are anti-Semitic.

  158. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:52 am  

    OP,

    “The Right Wing Christian movement seeking to bring about the ‘Biblical’ Israel will then push ahead and insist all those Jews convert to Christianity. My question of course is what will you do to those jews who will not convert?

    I have no truck with those nutters.”

    Humour me. What do you think they would do to the Jews who refuse to convert?

  159. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:54 am  

    I have no idea, but whatever it is I would not approve of it. Forced conversion is a Muslim game, not a Christian one.

  160. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 10:59 am  

    OP’s ‘argument’ makes me laugh.

    so right when the ‘Fifth Columnists’ thought ooh yes let’s have a German speaking nation, we will be far more efficient that way’.. they may well have been right but we know that sort of thinking didn’t impress anyone else!

    :-)

  161. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:05 am  

    OP – let me put it to you, that it will not be far off what happened to Jews in Europe.

  162. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:07 am  

    I know which of OP’s buttons the salivating old moose would like me and others here to press (eeuugh). We all know the dried up prune harbours some deep sexual fantasies that her leave her confused and resentful. Yeah, I reckon it is racist to drag her Jewish “partner” into it, in a Pavlovian sort of way. But I reckon she’d love to bung on a rubber burkha and have hubby watch as Osama went to work through a hole at one end and jim davidson banged away at the other.
    When I’ve had enough of her racist and hateful bile, I go straight for the vulgar and personal. Works for me every time. It is the only button I’m prepared to press when it comes to her.
    People are still people OP. When are you going to grasp that Adolf Hitler’s views of the Jews (and that of a hell of a lot of social commentators in the 100 years before the Holocaust), were not dissimilar to your current views of the Arabs. Don’t give me that shit that you’re attacking just an ideology. It’s wannabe sophistry. What’s more you’re relentless, always coming on here with your diatribes. Don’t you get bored? This ain’t the frontline you know. Ain’t you got any friends?
    You know, I will bring your “Jewish hubby” into this after all: he either doesn’t exist, doesn’t know the full extent of your views, or is a complete cunt and a withering eunich for tolerating such a vile personality.
    Getting moist?

  163. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:25 am  

    this is all getting silly as usual!

  164. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:27 am  

    though pointing this out – “When are you going to grasp that Adolf Hitler’s views of the Jews (and that of a hell of a lot of social commentators in the 100 years before the Holocaust), were not dissimilar to your current views of the Arabs.”

    is spot on. And is important to be pointed out since people say they never want any of that to ‘ever happen again’. well the mindset is still floating around..so

  165. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:42 am  

    El Cid – you are charm itself. Do you realise how sexist you sound? But then people who glorify primitive cultures, such as that of Islam, cannot help but be sexist.

    When have I advocated exterminating Arabs? I certainly support wholeheartedly Israel’s right to self-defence. Arabs constantly attack this tiny country and have never stopped being at war with it. So if Israel responds, which it does with considerable restraint, and kills a few “Palestinian” terrorists, and if other “Palestinian” “civilians” – that is potential terrorists or terrorist supporters – get bumped off in the process I seriously cannot bring myself to give a monkey’s.

    But to go from that to a comparison with Hitler is frankly hysterical. Godwin’s Law, I believe it is called. A sure sign that you have lost the argument.

  166. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:44 am  

    OP – Given the brutal treatment of Jews by Christians, not even that long ago, do you not worry that the US Evangalists will gleefully repeat history – once all the Jews have been gathered?

    You say “I have no idea, but whatever it is I would not approve of it.”.

    Wouldn’t it be better to prepare for that day and find out what they hope to achieve and what they could end up doing?

    Once you have done that – perhaps we will have a basis of a genuine conversation.

  167. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:48 am  

    The threat to Jews, and indeed everyone else, comes not from Christians but from Muslims.

    I’ll start worrying about Christians when they start blowing themselves up on the tube and stoning rape victims.

  168. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 11:58 am  

    OP – I advise you to check it out. Its not worth ducking this crucial issue.

  169. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:03 pm  

    OK. But ask yourself who is committing the terrorism.

  170. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:14 pm  

    I feel a lot better.
    Oi dummy.. read what I said… “100 years before WW2″ does not = the final solution (even if that is its logical conclusion if allowed to thrive and gain power).

  171. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:24 pm  

    I don’t think we need worry about US Evangelicals. They’re due to be raptured in a couple of weeks (and wetting their pants with glee as the current mayhem plays out their mad narrative). An evangelical colleague is even now trying to find homes for her cats among her unsaved acquaintances.

    OP and Bikhair are two sides of the same coin. OP thinks it witty and provocative to talk of exterminating vermin and Bikhair sees homicide as a legitimate form of family therapy. Once in a while one or other will say something that seems to make sense, but that’s a monkeys&typewriters fluke.

  172. Ravi Naik — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:27 pm  

    “The threat to Jews, and indeed everyone else, comes not from Christians but from Muslims.”

    I think you love the attention you are getting, even at the expense of sounding stupid, shallow and lazy.

    It’s all too easy to reduce people to a name – in this case their religion – and then assigning it a particular trait (terrorists, threat to the world) as if this incredibly diverse group acted homogenously.
    This is what racists and bigots do to demonise a particular ethnic group – so I understand why El Cid brought up Hitler, and there are so many other examples to choose from our History.

    “Forced conversion is a Muslim game, not a Christian one.”

    And talking about History, this little gem shows how little you know about either religion.

  173. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:27 pm  

    from an ad published by Gush Shalom in Ha’aretz july 21st:

    ” “Cease Fire – Now!

    The policy of brute force a war, backed by the Bush Administration, exacts a heavy price from Israelis, Lebanese and Palestinians. The attempt to create a “New Regional Order” and the plans to attacks Syria as well are bound to lead to new disasters.

    ..This is the time to demand: Silence the guns, start talking! There are no military solutions. The bombings do not prevent attacks on the Israeli civilian population, nor will they restore the captive soldiers to their families.

    We call upon all citizens of Israel – men and women, Jews and Arabs, each and every person of conscience – to work together for the restoration of sanity, against the illusion of a military dictat. Let us demonstrate for an alternative way, a way of peace and security based upon the withdrawal of the IDF from all Occupied Territories, dismantling of the settlements, a peace agreement between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, and respect for the sovereignty of all states in the region.”

    http://sonia.pickledpolitics.com/2006/07/25/the-tel-aviv-protests-in-favour-of-peace/

  174. Sunny — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    Refresh: Sunny, Lenin is doing an excellent job of covering the war. Particularly his recent material. Judge for yourself.

    You only say that because he represents your point of view. He is definitely not balanced. See my recent fracas with him here.

    To the rest, can we please try and avoid OP’s trolling. It degenerated the thread.

  175. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:30 pm  

    Hey, I just noticed — I’ve been accused of glorifying Islam… Dat’s just funny!!

  176. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:35 pm  

    It would be interesting if more people were to digg this story – more awareness the better

    http://digg.com/world_news/Tel_Aviv_peace_protest

  177. El Cid — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:36 pm  

    Sorry, it’s my baser, street instincts. I keep forgetting I’m supposed to be middle class.
    (I’m not really sorry but I’ll desist. I was doing well for a few months, a model of restraint, taking a leaf out of Don’s gentlemanly book, but then, wham, she pressed the button again).

  178. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:39 pm  

    “The threat to Jews, and indeed everyone else, comes not from Christians but from Muslims.

    I’ll start worrying about Christians when they start blowing themselves up on the tube and stoning rape victims.”
    At the moment christians are probably less murderous, as christians, than muslims, as muslims, but good christians can find plenty of other reasons to kill people without dragging god into it. Historically christians were more cruel and murderous than muslims. They changed because of external pressure, not because of any inherent virtue in christianity..

  179. Bert Preast — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:45 pm  

    And what we’re currently seeing is islam resisting changes from external pressure.

  180. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:47 pm  

    OP thinks it witty and provocative to talk of exterminating vermin

    Er, when?

  181. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:49 pm  

    Seeing as people insist on comparing Israeli dead vs Lebonise dead, I thought I’d compare it to other numbers.

    52 killed in London
    170 killed in Madrid
    2976 killed in New York
    202 killed in Bali bombings

    When you consider that hundreds, if not thousands of bombs have been dropped over Lebonan it is obvious that they ARE NOT TARGETTING CIVILIANS.

    Had they really targetting civilians doing this we would be seeing numbers in the hundreds of thousands dead.

    1 week worth intensive bombing and “only” 400 Lebanonise dead?

    That’s under twice the death toll of the Bali bombings.

    Looked at in these terms, Isreal is doing amazing job of keeping the numbers of civilian deaths down.

    Would you not agree?

    TFI

  182. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:56 pm  

    Sunny: “You only say that because he represents your point of view. ”

    Yes that much is true. Probably not entirely but mainly.

    All the same I hadn’t seen some of the material he’s pulling together anywhere else.

    I also perused the ‘spat’, got a bit heated I saw.

  183. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    so TFI i take it you’re perfectly happy to go on a holiday to Beirut in that case? :-)

  184. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

    in any case it’s splitting hairs – they may not be targetting civilians, but does it then make a bit of difference if civilians die?

    comparing no.’s of people dead is stupid and foolish and completely inhuman by the way. also rather childish. “mi-iss – they stole more of my candy than i managed to steal off them”

  185. sonia — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

    i also take it you’ve gone and ‘counted’ the no. of people dead yourself? or been in a war and are fully aware of the absolute ease of working out how many ppl are dead? who works it out anyway? :-)

    gosh some people are so naiive. “census takers amidst the bombings wow – what organization.”

    yeah…!

  186. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:04 pm  

    They have been accused of targetting civilians. They are clearly not targetting civilians. Hezbollah, on the other hand, clearly do target civilians.

    If Hezbollah, the “Palestinians” and other Muslims in the Middle East – and the rest of the world for that matter – could wipe Israel off the map, that is exactly what they would do.

    Israel, by contrast, could wipe out every Palestinian in half a day. They don’t because they have conscience.

  187. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:06 pm  

    If we weren’t rather childish we wouldn’t be the way we are unfortunately.
    Whenever people say somethinmg is “totally inhuman” they actually mean it’s totally human but they wish it weren’t. We can be detached and contemptuous about this- or most of us can- because we don’t have- either directly or indirectly- any personal or emotional involvement with it. Let it be ourselves or our friends or fasmily and we’ll lose all proportion and be frothing for vengeance and screaming hatred. I’ve no doubt that there are people inIsrael and Lebanon who regret what they see as the contemptible moderation of “their” boys.

  188. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:08 pm  

    Hizbuullah do not target civilians. They do not have missiles accurate enough to target anything except Israel. When they have missiles accurate enough to target military targets, such as ships, they do.

  189. soru — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:13 pm  

    TheFriendlyInfidel:

    proportional to tonnage of bombs dropped, they are doing reasonably well (not ‘amazing’).

    proportional to the perceived threat they face, they are not doing anything very different from what most, if not all, people would do.

    proportional to actual progress towards goals related to dealing with that threat, they are doing atrociously.

    The statement ‘you have to break some eggs to make an omelette’ is of dubious morality, but nevertheless somewhat true. The similar statement ‘you have to smash up a few plates and set fire to your kitchen in order to make an omelette’ is rather less true.

  190. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:28 pm  

    You can’t break eggs without making an omelette.
    That’s what they tell the eggs.

  191. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 1:53 pm  

    The primary purpose of an egg is not an omlette.

    Roger, I have to disagree that Hizbuullah do not target civilians. Sending hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into a country is targetting civilians, although not specific ones.

    OP

    ‘I hope Israel destroys every last one of these vermin. ‘

    But you were referring specifically to terrorists there, weren’t you? It would be unfair to assume that you extended that to a whole people. Unless of course you decided that all Palestinians were ‘potential terrorists or terrorist supporters ‘ and could therefore be killed without exception or compunction.

    Fortunately the IDF, for all its faults, has not sunk to your level. Proudly announcing that you don’t give a monkey’s for the deaths of potential vermin places everything you say in a very clear context.

  192. sururi — on 28th July, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

    The generalizations in many pro-Zionist posts above about Hizb & Ham and AlQ and then Palestinans and Arabs and Muslims are astonishing; but then what would you expect from a site that considers Harry’s Place (and dspfw and others) as comrades. Why doesn’t someone expose the racism in these muscular liberal (prowar, proIsrael, proUS, proZionist) sites, one that this site is (deliberately or not?) feeding into? Try using the mildest versions of the same inhumane language about Jewish people and see what happens.

  193. Sunny — on 28th July, 2006 at 2:53 pm  

    Sururi – in case you didn’t read the original post, I was in fact questioning the stance taken by one of the commentators at HP.

    We’re not feeding into anything as far as I try. We take the middle line on issues, so inevitably we’ll be accused of being pro-Zionist and/or pro-Muslim.

    And using OP as an example of generalisations really is a bad idea. She is definitely a minority here.

  194. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 2:54 pm  

    Sonia, I’m glad you found my post of comparing death distasteful. I find people quoting ratios of deaths highly distasteful. This was the point of my post.

    TFI

  195. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

    But you were referring specifically to terrorists there, weren’t you? It would be unfair to assume that you extended that to a whole people. Unless of course you decided that all Palestinians were ‘potential terrorists or terrorist supporters ‘ and could therefore be killed without exception or compunction.

    Read my post again, carefully this time. “Vermin” refers to Hezbollah, not the Palestinians. I make no apology for referring to Hezbollah, who unlike Israel, deliberately target civilians, as vermin.

    I have not referred to the “Palestinians” as vermin, though I don’t think much of them. If, when Israel retaliates for an act of deliberate slaughter of civilians, “Palestinians” get caught in the crossfire, then no, I don’t give a monkey’s. That is not the same as saying they should be exterminated.

    But yes, I care more about Israeli deaths. Israel, with its Nobel prize winners, its democracy, its art and literature and its technological inventions, is an asset to the world. If there were no “Palestinians” it would not exactly make any difference to the advancement of human knowledge or culture.

  196. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 3:17 pm  

    I’m not going to stand next to the blatent racism of OP, but I will say I’ve very little sympathy for anyone that chants “Death to the Infidel”, “Death to America” or “Death to whoever”.

    Friendly Infidels like myself don’t hate them, but when I learn that they hate me my interests in them flat line.

    Looking forward to this Sunday’s paranoma “Faith, Hate and Charity”. “Who speaks for British Muslims” was very good. I’m going to ‘enjoy’ watching “Execution of a teenage girl” this evening.

    I don’t hate the haters, but I have zero sympathy for them. This include the Hezbola lovers and the Hamas lovers celebrating the war against Israel.

    TFI

  197. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 3:22 pm  

    Blatant racism? How so?

    As I said, I’ve nothing against Christian Arabs. And Muslims are of all races.

    Zero sympathy is far closer to what I feel about the “Palestinians” than hate. They should be given no aid and left to stew in their own juice until they finally take it upon themselves to work and build something rather than hate and destroy. Till they become more like the Israelis, in other words. But for that they’d have to ditch Islam.

  198. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 3:34 pm  

    I did read it carefully. You specified Hezbollah and Hamas, before asserting that all Palestinians were either terrorists or potential terrorists and therefore no Palestinian death was to be regretted.

    In light of your latest post, would it be fairer to say that, while not actively calling for the extermination of the Palestinians, you would regard it as no bad thing?

  199. bananabrain — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

    It’s fair to say that I care as much about the “Palestinians” as they do about themselves – sweet FA. They are followers of a murderous paedophile and committed to a death cult. They deliberately target civilians. They don’t work and contribute nothing whatsoever to the world except terrorism.

    i have to say that it is comments like this that perpetuate the conflict and contribute to a continuing polarisation of attitudes about the conflict. do you think you’re supporting israel like this, OP? because you’re not. you’re a fool and an ignorant bigot. friends like this (and all those christian evangelicals who are expecting us to convert or die at the coming apocalypse) we don’t need.

    If Israel knew about terrorist cells in its own terrority, would it air bomb those targets? No – because of collateral damages in regard to its own people.

    ravi – in this case, they would send in the police and military, just like any other country. when it’s not your own territory, as this isn’t, you can’t send in your police and military, because that is called an “invasion”. and that, too, would presumably be labeled “disproportionate” and “counterproductive”.

    Bigots like oldpickler ofcourse deny the Jenin massacre among others.
    because a bigot denies this does not mean it actually happened. no reputable source seriously suggests this took place.

    So the Hez are still using four UN positions to fire from, three of which are the same as they were firing from in yesterday’s report. So basically, the UN is unable to stop their positions being used by Hez as convenient firebases.
    precisely. if you are a bunch of hizbollahniks, what safer place to hide? i mean, if you’re used to using women and children as human shields, why would you balk at UN observers? there are also a fair number of instances of hizbollah and UN sharing facilities – not that i’m suggesting the UN are supporting them or anything, just that they’re not exactly distancing themselves, even if they really could.

    a newyork zionist killing Palestinians kids as part of the ‘respectable IDF’?
    is this actually a point you’re trying to make or actually just a stereotype to throw in the air for no purpose?

    Pro-Isreali people dont value the lives of those in the Darfur than they do Jews or Isreali Jews.

    http://www.genocideintervention.net/advocate/rally-apr06/

    read the list of sponsors, fool.

    What do you think they would do to the Jews who refuse to convert?
    oh, don’t worry about that – those of us who don’t convert will all be killed in the war of armageddon, apparently. doesn’t israel have the *best* friends?

    Forced conversion is a Muslim game, not a Christian one.
    except for the last 2000 years in europe, of course. do you know *anything* about 1492? the crusades? look up clifford’s tower in york, mate. i don’t fancy being a dhimmi, but it’s better than being massacred i don’t doubt.

    “When are you going to grasp that Adolf Hitler’s views of the Jews (and that of a hell of a lot of social commentators in the 100 years before the Holocaust), were not dissimilar to your current views of the Arabs.”
    and indeed not dissimilar to many muslims’ views on the jews – and their choices about must-see TV:

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43210
    http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_recycled.asp
    http://teachkidspeace.com/doc352.php

    anti-zionist, not anti-jewish. HAH. and, before anyone says so, yes, i know, there is a difference.

    I’ll start worrying about Christians when they start blowing themselves up on the tube and stoning rape victims.
    how about blowing up abortion clinics?

    OP and Bikhair are two sides of the same coin.
    that’s for dam’ sure.

    Fortunately the IDF, for all its faults, has not sunk to your level.
    *claps loudly*

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  200. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:14 pm  

    In light of your latest post, would it be fairer to say that, while not actively calling for the extermination of the Palestinians, you would regard it as no bad thing?

    Of course it would be a bad thing. Genocide is a bad thing, which is why when the Palis elected Hamas, a terrorist organisation that has in its charter the extermination of Israel, I looked askance at them. But it wouldn’t be as bad as the extermination of the Israelis because the “Palestinians” do not contribute anything to the world.

    Such extermination is more likely to be the work of other Muslims. Jordan had no qualms about exterminating around 20,000 Palestinians. Muslims and leftist useful idiots are silent on this, as they are on Darfur and the extermination by Assad of 20,000 Syrians at Hama. Yet boy do they shriek about the non-existent “massacre” that wasn’t Jenin.

    Don’t forget, too, that lots of Palestinian women, rape victims, for example, are exterminated by their loving parents or brothers.

  201. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:32 pm  

    Well I am astonished that you share the same ‘space’ as a director of Jihad Watch. Just been to your Blog.

    What amazes me is that your fellow authors (at New English Review) have written for some famous publications. Are they aware of your propensity for genocide? If not I think they should at least be made aware. The publications themselves should at least understand what they are dealing with.

    That said your honesty is to be admired. At least we know what we are dealing with. However your knowledge doesn’t even get close to your pathological hatred.

    Bananabrain: Thank you for speaking out!

  202. sururi — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:33 pm  

    Why do supporters of Israel’s terrorism always gloss and evade its terrorism and genocide (genocide under international law – look this up before criticism my use of the word) decade after decade by making it a precondition of criticising EVERY other injustice in the world before criticism of Israel can even begin? Who is exceptionalising Israel?

    The point of the critics of Israel is overwhelmingly to hold Israel up to scrutiny and accountability in the way that every other nation state is, demanding that Israel to be accountable to international legal, political and ethical norms in the way that every other state has to be.

    The racist bile against Arabs / Palestinians / Muslims from the supporters of Israel and Zionism reflects accurately the dominant ideology of that state.

  203. Bert Preast — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:34 pm  

    “I’ll start worrying about Christians when they start blowing themselves up on the tube and stoning rape victims.”
    “how about blowing up abortion clinics?”

    Attacking the doctors performing abortions is equitable to muslims attacking the actual invaders of Iraq or wherever is upsetting them. Your point would only be workable if anti-abortionists were indiscrimiantely attacking civilians in countries that permit abortion.

    And the anti-abortionists are not just christians, you know.

  204. bananabrain — on 28th July, 2006 at 4:40 pm  

    The point of the critics of Israel is overwhelmingly to hold Israel up to scrutiny and accountability in the way that every other nation state is, demanding that Israel to be accountable to international legal, political and ethical norms in the way that every other state has to be.
    oh i see. that makes it exceedingly clear. presumably you mean that all the other states that ignore these “international legal, political and ethical norms” like say, sudan, saudi arabia, iran or syria, should also be criticised from time to time? but then again, these countries don’t allow press freedom or dissent, or have any meaningful domestic opposition to the party line, so it’s a lot more difficult to get the information, ain’t it? and, incidentally, does this apply to non-nation states, like, say, hamas and hizbollah and al-qaida and so on? go ahead – hold them accountable – i’m sure they’ll pay attention.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  205. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:01 pm  

    Are they aware of your propensity for genocide?

    What propensity for genocide. I have specifically said – if you read my post – that I think genocide is a bad thing. This is why, when the Palestinians voted for Hamas, who are committed to the genocide of Israelis, I had my doubts about them.

    No, I am not calling for their extermination. But if, after they have targeted Israeli civilians, Israel, rightly retaliates and kills one of the terrorists, I am wholly indifferent when other Palestinians get caught in the crossfire.

    Now which bit of that suggests that I support genocide?

    Do carry on visiting my witty and erudite blog, by the way. Its owners’ opinions on the Palestinians are very similar to my own.

  206. sururi — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:23 pm  

    thanks, bananabrain, for confirming my point so well. please, you and op, keep enjoying the murders of arabs while you have your dinners this evening. keep cheering and defending zionist terrorism. you know in your hearts (and sleeves) exactly what you think about arabs, and you know exactly how much you hate them for no reasons other than what they are (not what ‘they’ do), and you know you want them killed, because that is what makes you who you are.

  207. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:36 pm  

    keep enjoying the murders of arabs

    Nope. Don’t enjoy, though if Hezbollah and Hamas got obliterated I’d raise a glass.

    And it isn’t murder, it’s accidental killing in a war started not by Israel but by Hezbollah.

  208. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:51 pm  

    Don,

    “OP and Bikhair are two sides of the same coin. OP thinks it witty and provocative to talk of exterminating vermin and Bikhair sees homicide as a legitimate form of family therapy.”

    I dont appreciate this comment at all. Do I really see homicide as a legitimate form of family theorapy? What does that even mean?

  209. Refresh — on 28th July, 2006 at 5:51 pm  

    “Do carry on visiting my witty and erudite blog, by the way. Its owners’ opinions on the Palestinians are very similar to my own.”

    Scary.

  210. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:00 pm  

    Old Pickler,

    “But yes, I care more about Israeli deaths.”

    At least someone is being honest.

    “Israel, with its Nobel prize winners, its democracy, its art and literature and its technological inventions, is an asset to the world. If there were no “Palestinians” it would not exactly make any difference to the advancement of human knowledge or culture.”

    I will assume that this is why many other conflicts in the world are completely ignored when there are many deaths because those deaths dont involve such over achieving people? Wow! I guess there werent enough Tutsi scientest for the world to care about their plight. So this is the only time your life means something? This is the only reason why your life should be worth the sympathy of others? Absence all the, “…Nobel prize winners, its democracy, its art and literature and its technological inventions…” your life isnt that valueable or worthy of consideration? Wow! Old Pickler you dont strike me as being a very accomplished person. So I dont value your life, not one bit.

    Dam you are one evil evil woman. Ugly, evil, vengeful, heartless… You are disgusting.

  211. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:27 pm  

    ‘Dam you are one evil evil woman. Ugly, evil, vengeful, heartless… You are disgusting.’

    What a convenient point at which to answer your earlier question, Bikhair. In order to do so I must ask you to take part in our simple on-line survey; it’s quick, only one question and multiple choice answers.

    1. The killing, whether judicial or domestic, of a woman for offences against chastity or any other form of perceived deviation from sexual norms is vile, barbaric and can in no circumstances be justified.

    a. Agree

    b. Disagree

    c. Don’t know.

    Answer a and I withdraw the remark. Answer b or c and I refer you to your own (accurate) description of OP.

  212. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:31 pm  

    I’m not advocating genocide. Just stating the obvious fact that the Palestinians make no contribution to the world.

  213. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:33 pm  

    “The racist bile against Arabs / Palestinians / Muslims from the supporters of Israel and Zionism reflects accurately the dominant ideology of that state. ”
    Does it, Sururi? Some of the loopier ones, yes, but that applies to some of the people who shout “Israel must be destroyed.” and mean it. When an attack has taken place there are cries of rage and for vengeance from both sides. One of the biggest problems is that Israelis and Palestinains both take the immrdiate rage-inspired rhetoric of the others literally and bothe uslam and judaism have long traditions of powerful rhetoric behind them. If the Israeli government and IDF actually shared that attitude the dead Palestinians and Lebanese would be in their tens of thousands. Unfortunately- both officially and at the level of ordinary soldiers- the IDF is becoming steadily less concerned with minimising noncombatant casualties. Compare the first intifada and the casualty rates of combatants and noncombatants with now.

  214. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:34 pm  

    Now the Israelis – in fact a lot of Muslims would miss them. They developed a lot of internet related software and mobile phone systems which the likes of Hamas etc are too thick to think up for themselves, but which they need to use for their terrorist activities.

    I’m trying to think of something the Palestinians have invented. Nope, can’t.

  215. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:39 pm  

    DOn,

    Replance that “woman” with man and then I will answer the question.

  216. Roger — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:41 pm  

    “War with Zulus.

    Cause: the Zulus.
    Zulus exterminated.
    Peace with Zulus.”

    -from 1066 and All That.
    Any resemblance to opinions expressed on this page is entirely coincidental, i hope.

  217. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

    Bikhair,

    Question stands.

  218. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 6:57 pm  

    Don,

    1. The killing, whether judicial , of a woman or man for offences against chastity or any other form of perceived deviation from sexual norms is vile, barbaric and can in no circumstances be justified.

    a. Agree

    b. Disagree

    c. Don’t know.

    I choose b. Please reread the questions as it has been altered to fit the spirit of the Sharia.

    You know that adultress in Nigeria didnt recieve the punishment for stoning after having admitted she was guilty of adultery. While there was international outcry over her case there were three other people, men, awaiting the same punishment she was spared. Not a peep was heard about them. Hmmmm….

    I dont see how you can draw parrallels between me and Old Pimple. She is passing judgement to the value of whole peoples while I am condemning the actions of individuals.

  219. Don — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:06 pm  

    And I’m passing judgement on you. I guess that makes me overweeningly arrogant, but with people like you and OP around it’s hard not to be.

  220. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:07 pm  

    Old Pimple,

    …In terrible need of being popped.

    “I’m trying to think of something the Palestinians have invented. Nope, can’t.”

    Just because you cant think of anything isnt saying much. Life in the Gaza and Occupied terroritories isnt dead. People, by their nature contribute to the world. Most not as scientist or inventors but as things like mothers and fathers which are very important. Secondly I dont know if you remember what happen to the Palestinians expats in Kuwait after the first Gulf War. Many were kicked out of Kuwait for their “support” for supporting Saddam but were asked to return because of the important roles they played in that countries economy.

    It is really a shame someone who boost about the superirority of Western civilization, whatever that means and would condemn a whole people because they dont live up to your standards.

    Isrealis must be proud to have people like you on their side. That or embarrassed. I will give the average Isreali the benefit of the doubt as I do with most people and will say that I doubt that they share your views.

    By your own definition of whose life is more valueable than others you condemn yourself.

    You know fascism is a Western ideology.

  221. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:08 pm  

    from 1066 and All That.

    My favourite book in the whole world.

    My judgement on the value of people, as Bikhair puts it, equates to their own judgement of themselves. The Palestinians use children as human shields, honour kill rape victims and strap suicide belts to mentally handicapped boys. One can conclude that the value they place on human life is minimal.

    Assad killed 20,000 Muslims at Hama. Jordan massacred 20,000 Palestinians. Muslim life is cheap to other Muslims, it seems.

    The Palestinians to a lot of harm, not least to themselves, and very little good. So no, they wouldn’t be missed.

  222. Katy Newton — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:16 pm  

    Well, thank goodness you’ve all managed to sit down and sort everything out in a polite, mature, civilised way.

  223. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:28 pm  

    Bikhair, your answer to your rephased question means that you must answer (a) to Don’s question, simply because you believe it CAN be justified.

    You have a twisted mind capable of great hatred.

    Perphaps you ought give up the pleasures and freedoms America affords you and go live in Palestine. I’m sure they would be delighted to have a single minded black American woman in their mists.

    Perphaps you would be happier if you lived Saudi? There you can go and cheer on the crowds as they stone the people that you “justifiably” hate.

    TFI

  224. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:31 pm  

    OP you cannot judge people soley on their contribution to the scientific and Western world. To do so is to damn very tribe in the world and claim moral supioriority to a single group and a single culture.

    In this at least, Bikhair is correct.

    TFI

  225. Sid — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:48 pm  

    She’s pure as New York snow
    She got Enoch Powell eyes

  226. Old Pickler — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:52 pm  

    To do so is to damn very tribe in the world and claim moral supioriority to a single group and a single culture.

    Yep. That’s right. Western culture, which includes Israel is morally superior, as well as being superior in most other ways.

  227. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 28th July, 2006 at 7:53 pm  

    She does coke and steals eyes?

    Pure madness ..

    TFI

  228. Sunny — on 28th July, 2006 at 8:04 pm  

    I think bananabrain said it best above with:

    do you think you’re supporting israel like this, OP? because you’re not. you’re a fool and an ignorant bigot. friends like this (and all those christian evangelicals who are expecting us to convert or die at the coming apocalypse) we don’t need.

    This thread isn’t going anywhere because as usual OP’s trolling and everyone’s humouring her stupidity. I’m going to close it and will think of something else to write on the issue later.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.