web analytics

MR BEAN DENIES WAR ON TERROR..

By ATWadmin On January 15th, 2009

I can’t believe anyone with an ounce of common sense pays any attention to the gaseous blether coming from Mr Bean-look a like David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, who has bid an acrimonious adieu to George W Bush today, branding the outgoing President’s War on Terror a “misleading and mistaken” doctrine that had united extremists against the West. Speaking in Mumbai, Mr Miliband said that the idea of a War on Terror gave a false notion “of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and the organisation of al-Qaeda”.

Mr Bean employs the vacuous drivel of the Left for his own gains and I am sure he made this speech in order to chock up plaudits with the Obama team. The fact is that militant Islam has been at war with us LONG before President Bush came to power, and it will still be at war with us LONG after President Obama leaves the White House.The best we can do is ensure we kill all of those who would terrorise us and reduce their capability to harm us. In a war we should be aiming to win. But the thing that Mr Bean is most annoyed about is that Bush did something about the Jihad.

Since 9/11, there have been NO attacks on US soil. Can Mr Bean make the same claim about the UK?

With the Taliban toppled in Afghanistan, Saddam and his psycho sons moved off this mortal coil to a much warmer spot and Al Queda forced to huddle  in the caves of the Pakistan/Afghan  border, Bush has achieved quite a lot. Of COURSE he could and should have done more, I would have preferred a more aggressive approach to militant Islam. I didn’t like the “war on terror” meme, it should have been the “war on Jihad”. But Mr Bean gives the President no credit whatsover and that is because Mr Bean has only one big idea – talking. Soft power backed up  by softer heads is all he can fall back on. He is truly pathetic apology for a Foreign Secretary but then his government is the same government that even denies that there IS Islamic terrorism. Tell it to the next of kin of the victims of 7/7.

Then again should we surprised at anything Mr Bean says? Just remember that he comes from a family of Marxists. (And I don’t mean they liked Groucho and his kin.)

102 Responses to “MR BEAN DENIES WAR ON TERROR..”

  1. "Since 9/11, there have been NO attacks on US soil. Can Mr Bean make the same claim about the UK?"

    I think we can go to the excellent philisophers, the Simpsons, to disregard David’s Point.

    In the episode, Much Apu About Nothing, the following exchange happens between Homer and Lisa.

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm.
    Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
    Homer: Thanks.

    Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Hmm; how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?

    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

    Just because there have been no attacks on US Soil since 2001 does not mean that George Bush is being successful.

  2. When it comes down to it, I don’t have a lot of time for David Miliband, but he didn’t deny that Islamic Terrorism exists. He stated that instead of picking them apart one by one, the United States transformed it into one large entity.

  3. Mr Miliband said that the idea of a War on Terror gave a false notion "of a unified, transnational enemy …

    That’s precisely what it is. It’s unified under the banner of global jihad. The goal is subjection of all non believers under Islamic theocratic rule.

    They don’t make any secret of this.

    This is a speech of pure drivel from a substandard fool who has shown himself unfit to be Foreign Secretary.

  4. In Islamic theology, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam – the lands where Islam is supreme, and Dar al-Harb – the domain of war which must be conquered by Islam.

    The population of the world is divided into Muslims and Kuffars (non-believers). Muslims are superior to Kuffars who are ‘najis’ (filthy or polluted).

    The Kuffars themselves are further divided into Dhimmis and Harbis. A Dhimmi is a Kuffar who pays the Jizya (protection money) and accepts the supremacy of Islam, and may be allowed to live. A Harbi is a Kuffar who does not accept the supremacy of Islam, and must be killed.

    So we are not at war with terror. But Islam is at war with us and always has been, and always will be until we submit, pay the Jizya and ‘feel ourselves subdued’, as the Koran says. Terror is an essential aspect of Islam. Mohammed himself said ‘I have been made victorious through terror’. Milliband is an idiot.

    So remember folks…

    YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN JIHAD, BUT JIHAD IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

  5. I’m just wondering whether any of these fascinating insights into moslem belief and culture come from personal knowledge and exposure or is it simply lifted from other hate sites?

  6. Jimmy,

    We are indeed a hate site. We hate terrorists and their loathsome apologists.

  7. That’s not really an answer now is it?

  8. Jimmy Sands –

    Would you like to try a cheesebu-

    Whoops, force of habit.

    So, is any part of knuckledragger’s post innacurate?

  9. Well for starters I’m a Harbi according our resident theologian and no Moslem of my acquaintance has made any effort to kill me. No doubt to the distress of many. Let’s face it, 50 years ago he would have been warning people that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies.

  10. Well that’s not really an answer, Jimmy.

    No backing up now, you’re already in a corner. You see, knuckledragger’s post was spot on. There’s no argument about this, Islam doesn’t hide these things.

    But to you, they may well have come from a ‘hate’ site somewhere, so foul are these ideas. Let me say it for you:

    oops

  11. "M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
    (short pause)
    A: No it isn’t."

    Monty Python

  12. Jimmy Sands –

    Don’t worry, I’m not in the habit of chasing people up and down a thread, but try and say something interesting.

    Have you anything to say about Hamas terrorists using UN property to attack the IDF?

    Is there anything innacurate in knuckledragger’s post?

    Go on, give it a go.

  13. Knuckledragger is clearly not an ironic tag. His Protocols of the Elders of Islam is racist hysterical gibberish not worthy of serious argument. As for the IDF excuses for its warcrimes they are becoming so implausible that I would have thought even the missing links that post here might have started to question them, but apparently not.

  14. ‘racist hysterical gibberish’

    Islam is not a race, it’s a supremacist totalitarian ideology like Nazism and Stalinism.

    You can’t change your race but you can change your ideology.

  15. Shaven Headed …
    That is a very interesting post. On first reading it is certainly a very challenging post – and try as I might to find fault with it, scripturally as far as I can see (which may not be very far) you not wrong.
    However, as with all these things, life is not quite as black and white as your analysis would appear. For example the exact nature of Dar Al-Harb is not quite clear, nor indeed the obligations put upon believers.
    But it is certainly true that hard-liners can, and absolutely do, interpret the Hadith and Qu’ran in the way you do, and would certainly use that to justify their actions.
    This is one of the great problems in Islam and its ability to coexist peacefully with other cultures and religions. There continues to be too much "dead weight," ideas and doctrines which really aren’t so different from how other religions also acted in the past, but which other religions have by and large repudiated and abandoned.
    As a matter of interest, by way of contrast, I had a look through the Bible. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are usually good places to look for that Old Testament wrathful God kind of stuff.
    Sure enough Deuteronomy 17 is all about having to slay non-believers "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

  16. You may quote the Old Testament correctly Jaz, but Christians do not put non-believers to death no matter what the Bible may say. As for muslims and their instructions from allah, believing in the koran, the hadith and the absolute truth of such scripture is what makes a muslim a muslim and therefore a potentially dangerous, hate-filled nutter.

  17. Back to the topic in question:

    The reason Millipede and others dislike the phrase ‘war on terror’, may be more prosaic than you realise. ie. it has ‘lost currency through over-usage’, in the same way that Employment Exchange’ was dropped in favour of Job Centre and Borstal for Young Offenders Institute.
    However… trolling through the media I noticed that Millibland & other media hacks rather like the expression ‘War on Extremism’, and if ever there was a catch-all phrase then this is the perfect example, because I’ve noticed that the BNP is now fairly routinely referred to as ‘far right extremists’.
    What this neo marxist govt is really trying to imply is: anybody, or organisation that could be a threat to their social agenda, can expect judicial persecution….all those that is, with the exception of Muslim terrorists: "they don’t play by the rules and they scare the living shite out of us." Millicrap.

  18. Allan – much as my bleeding-heart, bearded, Guardian-reading lefty-soul would like to disagree with you, the interpretation that Shaven is, in some reading, and by some interpretations, correct (I am sure my equivocation will not have gone unnoticed).
    But there are plenty of other interpretations that would refute it and give a much less extreme version.
    However, the unpalatable truth remains that there are some pretty dodgy parts of the Qu’ran. I read it and I would be lying if I said I wasn’t really shocked by it.
    But equally well there are hard-line Christians who take the word of the Bible as the literal truth. Fortunately they don’t seem to own AK47s.

  19. "But equally well there are hard-line Christians who take the word of the Bible as the literal truth. Fortunately they don’t seem to own AK47s."

    You’re obviously not from Northern Ireland.

  20. Bush has been the worst president since Harding. Bush is a nice guy, i would agree. He may well be one of the most personable Presidents of recent years.

    He is, however, an idiot. inept at business and also politics. He is just a very incapable man.

    He left the radical liberal ‘neo-con’ movement take care of foreign policy and has set the war on radical Islam back decades. He also fostered the development of radical Islam’s Parallel, evangelicalism, at home.

    His failures will haunt America for decades to come.

  21. Guba –

    Let’s have a little more there.

    He left the radical liberal ‘neo-con’ movement take care of foreign policy and has set the war on radical Islam back decades.

    It sounds like you think there should be a ‘war’ on radical Islam.

  22. Pete, of course, it is an obvious danger. Bin Laden should have been captured and the Taliban destroyed. Bush, in Iraq, has created a perfect training ground and recruitment rallying point for Al Qaeda. Israel’s actions in Gaza are doing likewise; putting us in serious danger.

    Radical Islam will only be fully defeated when religion is eviscerated from the face of the earth, however.

  23. If you don’t think like GUBA your thoughts must be eviscerated from the face of the Earth because he’s THAT CORRECT. Lovely, give me the Islamic radicals.

  24. >>"But equally well there are hard-line Christians who take the word of the Bible as the literal truth. Fortunately they don’t seem to own AK47s."

    You’re obviously not from Northern Ireland.<<

    indeed, Jimmy!

  25. Some people will not accpet the truth no matter how much it stares them in the face.

  26. There is an excellent book ‘Al-Qaedaism – the threat to Islam, The threat to the world’ by Richard Whelan. it analyses how Al-Qaeda is more of a brand name, than any over-arching ‘spectre’ type orgamnistion.

    And the islamophobes would do well to read it and other books instead of going to the JTF type sites. The greater Jihad seems to go straight over the heads of some people.

  27. "Since 9/11, there have been NO attacks on US soil. Can Mr Bean make the same claim about the UK? "

    So joining in the war on terror didn’t work for the UK, and that’s supposed to be a point in its favor?

  28. Islam is not a race, it’s a supremacist totalitarian ideology like Nazism and Stalinism

    – Crusades anyone?

  29. If anyone wants a laugh, just have a look at the arguments over at the "Israel: Rubbish at Genocide" thread (since about 3 p.m.)

    It’s like the Peace of God, it goeth beyond all human understanding.

  30. Exactly Noel

    Statements like Neo Con Cons above could be seen as a satirical jibe at the Islamoparanoics, or could actually be uttered with serious intent by several regulars here.

  31. Mahons:

    Religion is a terrible ideology. The idea must be eviscerated. Reason and rationality must become the basis of politics, not fear and irrationality. Religion is the root cause of most of the world’s problems; more than you may think.

    I do not condone killing anyone, so your choice of Islamism is rather strange., but not unexpected from someone under religion’s spell. BTW, one does not have to believe in God to be in such a position. Religion’s hold on society is far deeper than that.

  32. Noel, I understand your support for Palestinian civilians, I really can’t wrap my head around your support for Hamas.

    Could you please explain your support for that political group?

  33. GUBA- Yes and your buddies Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin felt the same way. I’ll pass on your "reason" and stick with my own.

  34. He hopes they blow up his ex-wife.

  35. eh ?

  36. A joke, Noel’s ex was Jewish.

    Noel – intended as a joke, if it fell flat my apologies in advance.

  37. I never knew Noel had an ex wife who was Jewish. Oh well I suppose some here will regard his divorce from her as proof of his anti-semitism 😉

  38. Guba,

    "Religion is a terrible ideology."

    Religion isn’t an ideology and lumping in say the Jains, with Wahabbists et al, isn’t exactly precise.

  39. Love that inside info, lawyerman.

    Colm, he’s not antisemitic, just liberal. I have explained this already, do you need more schooling? 😉

  40. Guba

    Evil is part of the human condition . and not dependent on either belief in god or non belief.

  41. Yes Miss I need more schooling . I need more discipline. I been a bad bad boy 😉

  42. Daphne,

    "Noel, I understand your support for Palestinian civilians, I really can’t wrap my head around your support for Hamas."

    He doesn’t, so you can cease wrapping. 🙂

  43. There are those in these environs who have expressed support for Hamas, cutely worded. The enemy of my enemy thing.

    Good night.

  44. Ahhh Colm, walk this way and bend on over, darlin’. I can be a fierce mistress.

    I believe our Noel is having a hard time separating the two from what I’ve been reading. He’s been blurring the lines a tad.

  45. Mahons:

    I think you are more intelligent than that. You believe that reasoning? You, after all, said that you would prefer Islamism, a movement that salivates at killing.

    I would never, ever condone religious violence. I would never force anyone to change their religious beliefs.

    This is demonstrative of my point. You (i may be wrong) probably belief in God, but in a liberal, ‘pick and chose’ kind of way. Were you British, Swedish or French, you would probably be an atheist. Though religious belief is dwindling, its grasp of our culture is as strong as ever. Its irrationality is ingrained in our secular beliefs and ideology. As i have said before, the enlightenment is no were near complete.

  46. >>He hopes they blow up his ex-wife.<<

    Mahons, just called my ex-wife at Christmas. Still bears my name, still with Irish passport, still never been to Ireland or learned a word of English.

    Most importantly, still lives in Europe.

    How yeh gonna keep ’em down on the Kibutz
    After they’ve seen Pareee!

    >>I understand your support for Palestinian civilians, I really can’t wrap my head around your support for Hamas.<<

    Daphne,

    I dislike all such organisations and hope they soon die out. I agree neither with its methods or aims (from what Ive heard of them, but a many lies are told about those too. BTW. please have a look at the "Israel: Hopeless at Genocide" thread).

    Still, when I see any army with overwhelming, and I mean absolutely overwhelming, force, technlogy and money (supplied by your taxes) attack an impoverished state crammed with people, and do so for no real reason and kill hundreds of civilians, hundreds of children there, I will support anyone trying to stop this slaughter.

    To put it bluntly: imagine this scenario:

    If some irregular goons had fired rockets into my country, but killed nobody, and the Irish army replied by shelling and bombing the towns where they lived and killed 300 children while doing so, and if I happened to be there and had access to and could use an AA gun, I would try to shoot as many of the bombers down as I could.

    Even thouogh they were paid for with my taxes!

  47. Frank! How’ve you been? Well, I hope.

    I’m damn good at wrapping, so I’ll pass on that suggestion. Seriously, I don’t an argument for Noel’s Palestinian support, his opinion is valid, but in his enthusiasm he’s certainly broached support for Hamas. I don’t plan on ripping him a new orifice, just curious.

  48. Sorry Noel – we cross posted.

  49. "I don’t plan on ripping him a new orifice"

    I don’t know if Noel is dissapointed or relieved at that 🙂

  50. Daphne

    I recommend you read some Bernard-Henri Levy. He’s a Frenchman, leftwing as they come, bit of an intellectual – with a succinct enough description for the Noels of this world.

  51. Noel, they didn’t attack for "no reason", you know that. Hamas had been provoking them with rocket attacks for many months, for their own internal political purposes. If Hamas actually cared for the people they represented, they would have been treating with Israel honorably (like statesmen instead of terrorists) to achieve their goals of lifting the blockade.

  52. Alison

    Noel has been brilliant in all his arguments on the recent conflict. Succinct, logical, factual and decent. He has demolished every argument thrown back at him.

  53. Alison, I’ve read Bernard-Henri Levy (excellent recommendation), he does describe this particular mindset quite well.

  54. Colm, I think Noel is entitled to his opinion on palestine/israel. He always argues from an intelligent base. I have no truck, as I’ve said, with his basic point of view.

    I am genuinely curious when an anti-war pacifist sidles up to supporting a terrorist regime.

  55. Colm

    In your estimation and possibly others. If you feel such gushing misguided fudging defence of Hamas is ‘brilliant’ then that is of course up to you. Pete Moore, Phantom and Mahons have deconstructed his arguments (and his motivations) quite successfully.

  56. Daphne

    Noel has not supported Hamas. He has simply countered the fanatical ‘Israel is perfect and can do no wrong. The Palestinians are all child molesting evil cockroaches who killled Bambi.. and Kenny" mentality that has dominated ATW since this conflict began.

  57. Alison

    Let me repeat for you too. HE IS NOT A HAMAS SUPPORTER.

  58. He just did, Colm.

  59. He can dress it up anyway he pleases for you and others Colm. In my view he very much is. No need to yell. I can read what he writes perfectly well and form an opinion.

  60. Well I just read a comment where he clearly said he does not support Hamas’ aims or ideology or them as an organisation. Just becasue he also added that some untruths have been claimed about them does not make him a supporter of them.

  61. >>Pete Moore, Phantom and Mahons have deconstructed his arguments (and his motivations) quite successfully.<<

    Alison, you’d like to think so. Again, just look at the "Israel: Rubbish at Genocide" thread.

    Or if that’s a bit too heady for you at this time of night, show me one thread where any of those guys "deconstructed my arguments". There is none.

    (actually, the only guy around here who argues very well on the "Israeli" side is Ross. He even had me stumped once or twice! and he doesn’t even get noticed)

    >>They didn’t attack for "no reason", you know that. Hamas had been provoking them with rocket attacks for many months<<

    Daphne, again see the "Israel: Rubbish at Genocide" thread. I don’t want to repeat all that here.

    You see, on that thread, Phantom (yes, the very guy who in Alison’s eyes rubbished my arguments) in the end showed that Hamas had not been firing those rockets, even admitted it himself, and the links HE provided went even further in that regard than I would.

    There were many rockets being fired at Israel, including by Hamas, around 400 a month, until the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in June last year.
    After the ceasefire they petered out, until there were only 2 fired in October. These rockets were not fired by Hamas, but by dissident Islamist factions. In fact, Hamas tried to stop them and arrested those responsible.

    Then, on 4 November, after the quietest month on the Gaza border in years, Israel broke the ceasefire by bombing Gaza and killing 6 or 7 Hamas members.

    Hamas then started firing its rockets, the situation escalated and then Israel launched its all-out attack at Christmas.

    It must also be said that none of the rockets in the year up to this latest Israeli attack killed anyone in Israel. By any standard, an attack in such a relatively peaceful context that kills 300 children is entirely criminal.

    The remarkable thing for me is how all these facts can be so well concealed. When these threads started, most people here believed – amongst a host of other crazy things – that Hamas was killing Israeli citizens regularly until Israel launched its air attack. In fact it wasn’t killing any at all.

    And to say that is to support Hamas only to the extent that, in this case, the truth puts them in a better light than most people here do.

    BTW. Thanks for the very kind words, Colm. They wouldn’t mean nearly as much coming from someone without your scrupulous neutrality and common sense!

  62. >>Pete Moore, Phantom and Mahons have deconstructed his arguments (and his motivations) quite successfully.<<

    I fail to see where they did this to Noel. Unless cut and run is a success?

  63. >>I fail to see where they did this to Noel. <<

    RS, she no doubt got that from the same source that told her Hamas was killing Israelis before Israel responded.

  64. Can you tell me why we should accept the version of events you lay out and not this one Noel?

    From the start of the ceasefire at 6 AM on June 19 till the incident on November 4th cited by CNN, the following attacks were launched against Israel from Gaza in direct violation of the agreement:

    * 18 mortars were fired at Israel in this period, beginning on the night of June 23.
    * 20 rockets were fired, beginning on June 24, when 3 rockets hit the Israeli town of Sderot.
    * On July 6 farmers working in the fields of Nahal Oz were attacked by light arms fire from Gaza.
    * On the night of August 15 Palestinians fired across the border at Israeli soldiers near the Karni crossing.
    * On October 31 an IDF patrol spotted Palestinians planting an explosive device near the security fence in the area of the Sufa crossing. As the patrol approached the fence the Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles.

    There were two Palestinian attempts to infiltrate from Gaza into Israel apparently to abduct Israelis. Both were major violations of the ceasefire

    The first came to light on Sept. 28, when Israeli personnel arrested Jamal Atallah Sabah Abu Duabe. The 21-year-old Rafah resident had used a tunnel to enter Egypt and from there planned to slip across the border into Israel. Investigation revealed that Abu Duabe was a member of Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and that he planned to lure Israeli soldiers near the border by pretending to be a drug smuggler, capture them, and then sedate them with sleeping pills in order to abduct them directly into Gaza through a preexisting tunnel. I can put links if you need them

    • The second abduction plan was aborted on the night of Nov 4, thanks to a warning from Israeli Intelligence. Hamas had dug another tunnel into Israel and was apparently about to execute an abduction plan when IDF soldiers penetrated about 250 meters into Gaza to the entrance of the tunnel, hidden under a house. Inside the house were a number of armed Hamas members, who opened fire. The Israelis fired back and the house exploded – in total 6 or 7 Hamas operatives were killed and several were wounded ( i assume these are the guys you mention?). Among those killed were Mazen Sa’adeh, a Hamas brigade commander, and Mazen Nazimi Abbas, a commander in the Hamas special forces unit.

    It was when Israel aborted this imminent Hamas attack that the group and other Palestinian groups in Gaza escalated their violations of the ceasefire by beginning to once again barrage Israel with rockets and mortars.

  65. Noel

    What annoys me is that there is a very hardline veiwpoint here that will not accept anything other than an unyielding unrepentant uncritical fanatical flagwaving cheer for everything Israel does and if you show the dlightest discomfort at Israeli military actiosn you must be a genocidal holocaust denying Hamas loving anti-semite. It is childishly immature and pathetic and while I am not as critical of Israel’s actions as you I am disgusted by the sheer gleeful joy expressed here at the ‘Gaza pounding’ and I do admire your dogged determination to raise and keep flying a different and more thoughtful flag here.

  66. Look it’s very simple. Under the rules of this site anyone who believes Arab children should be permitted to live is a Hamas supporter.

  67. Colm,

    What ‘annoys’ me is how people equally accept what Noel and other Hamas defenders lay out as fact. It’s as though Israel has no legitimate beef with it’s super charming neighbours and enjoys waging war and a media battle stacked against it for no apparent reason at all. As if they’re stupid or bloodthirsty.

    Everyone has taken a side at the end of the day and siding with Hamas is very telling – it makes you a Hamas defender no matter how you dress it up with the odd well placed sentence to keep the peace.

    Of course Hamas should be pummeled into the fucking ground as ruthlessly as possible. I am disgusted by the same approach you decry, leveled at Israel at any opportunity and the light in which they paint that nation when facing an enemy such as Hamas.

    It is the Israel supporters who remain in a minority in media opinion with the forgiving nods towards Hamas.

    But most importantly. When have you ever read here a highly critical assessment of Hamas and its handling of the ongoing situation both before or during this present conflict by any of Israel’s detractors? And they are hardly either blameless nor steeped to their eyebrows in blood for the cruelty they have unleashed on their own children with their tit for tat attacks. I remind you that Gilad is still a captive in Gaza. Somebody’s son. He was just a kid when he was snatched. What for? What of him? Who cares?

    And numerous accounts back up these people’s sick twisted propensity to use their own dead children to hide behind and then wave at the cameras like so much war porn. And you all leer and point. But nada. Tumbleweed from the Hamas defenders who won’t hear anything of it.

  68. "Everyone has taken a side at the end of the day and siding with Hamas is very telling – it makes you a Hamas defender no matter how you dress it up with the odd well placed sentence to keep the peace."

    Actually, no. Some people side with Hamas. Some people side with the Israelis. Others side with the Palestinian people. Hamas should be removed but the must be removed by the Palestinian people, not by a Foreign diktat or at the point of a gun. The people of Palestine democratically endorsed Hamas and Hamas are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. They thus have both a right and an obligation to the Palestinian people.

    "Of course Hamas should be pummeled into the fucking ground as ruthlessly as possible. I am disgusted by the same approach you decry, leveled at Israel at any opportunity and the light in which they paint that nation when facing an enemy such as Hamas."

    Hamas were effectively created by the Israelis. Not physically created by them but Israel created the conditions in which Hamas thrived. Hamas were a minor player, a non-entity at the time of the Oslo Accords. If Israeli had behaved properly then Hamas would never have been a major player.

    Israel blockaded Gaza, alledgedly to stop the Rocket Attacks. It didn’t stop the Rocket Attacks. Israel then launched massive airstrikes against the Palestinian people, again alledgedly to stop the Rocket Attacks. It didn’t stop the Rocket Attacks. Israel then invaded and began occupying Gaza, again alledgedly to stop the Rocket Attacks. It hasn’t stop the Rocket Attacks.

    If these things were designed to stop the Rocket Attacks and they so obviously failed, why did Israel continue to do these things afterwards?

    "When have you ever read here a highly critical assessment of Hamas and its handling of the ongoing situation both before or during this present conflict by any of Israel’s detractors?"

    Many people have criticised Hamas. But if one group is committing acts that have killed less than 10 people while another has killed over 1,000 (1/2 of which are children) you have to go after the greater evil.

    "I remind you that Gilad is still a captive in Gaza. Somebody’s son. He was just a kid when he was snatched. What for? What of him? Who cares?"

    1 Israeli in Palestinian custody compared to the 11,000 Palestinians in Israeli custody. You can understand if I don’t weep for Gilad Shalit. Those 11,000 Palestinians are somebody’s sons, somebody’s daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers etc. Get your priorities checked out Alison.

  69. Alison

    I don’t disagree with most of what you say here. I do not view Israel as a bloodthirsty bully and I fully accept that Israel would dearly love to not have to fire a single bullet in anger at anyone but regardless of the wider media view Noel has been arguing against the prevailing orthodoxu here on ATW and I admire him for it. He is not an anti-semite, he is not a ‘hater’ of Israel , he just demonstrates an ability to see the people of Gaza as pitifully treated humans which they are and not as just a collection of ‘future suicide bombers’ as the likes of Troll and others see them . Hamas are an undoubtedly absolutely disastrous regressive and destructive entity but that does not mean the entire population of Gaza re just ‘scum’ who deserve whatever happens to them.

  70. Frank:

    It certainly is an ideology.

    Colm: Of course, evil can be committed by anyone irrespective of belief. Religion however reduces our capacity of rationality.

    Religion peddles fear: fear of death, fear of sex, fear of sin, fear of one’s own mind. Fear is the precursor of hate. Anti-semitism (portrayed by all these pro-Israeli’s on this blog – i assume they do not even know what anti-semitism means!) is not rational nor logical. The words used: ‘scum’ and ‘savage’ indicate their hate and fear.

    As Louis Brandeis put it: ‘Men feared witches and killed women’.

    Men fear Islam and terrorism and kill women and children. Until we escape from our fear, we will not really be free nor will we be truly moral. Religion – whether we like it or not – is a purveyor of fear, hate and, yes, evil.

  71. Ah yes GW Bush the failure the idiot the man who can not even string a sentence together.

    He gave a nice farewell speech tonight. He will be missed, but his policies won’t because as he noted once "whoever thr next president is he can’t sit in this chair, read what I read everymorning and do anything different"

    Unless of course they don’t care if Americans die or are blinded by a foolish ideology, as most the left are.

    Enjoy retirement President Bush and thank you for keeping me and my family safe. Even as the hate filled the planet against you, you remained the only one with a set of balls.

    God Bless You

  72. "whoever thr next president is he can’t sit in this chair, read what I read everymorning and do anything different"

    I’m sure he did, that sentence is incoherent.

  73. Guba, stop being such a nasty prick.

  74. Amen Troll, Pres Bush did his best, kept us safe, and toppled two dictatorships. Yes tough at times, but the times were tough.

  75. Phantom (yes, the very guy who in Alison’s eyes rubbished my arguments) in the end showed that Hamas had not been firing those rockets, even admitted it himself, and the links HE provided went even further in that regard than I would.

    Noel, I did not say that.

    I think that you misread my comment

    If not Hamas rockets, rockets from Palestinians fired from Gaza…Which never stopped. [ emphasis on the word "if"]

    Which was me saying that I can’t prove that every one of those rockets came from a Hamas fighter. I do know, however, that they all come from Palestinian hands on ground controlled by Hamas.

    That’s what I said, bro, and it’s all there in black and white.

    The link I gave only was meant to show the number of rockets fired month by month – I didn’t refer to the other assertions made by that article, and have no idea if they’re true or not.

  76. Dapne:

    I notice that you have come out with a similar tirade not too long ago as well. Why the language?

    That sentence is incoherent and does sound like something Bush would say. Can you decipher it? It has the syntax of a 12 year old.

  77. Guba how many degrees do you have? can you fly a plane? Could you get elected dog catcher let alone to the most powerful office in the world TWICE.

  78. Colm – Funny, by now we all have probably more information from each other on our various positions. I am less enamored of Noel’s position than you may be. He’s issued enough support of Hamas to convince me he is a fan. He’s probably unhappy with my support of Israel in this conflict.

    So be it.

    Guba – What was that name you sued to post here under, I forget. In any event, there are more people of faith than not, and my faith doesn’t depend on my geography, though I suspect your lack of faith does.

  79. I have two; i cannot fly a plane, but i am sure i could learn; i do not think that one gets elected to become a dogcatcher; and if my father was President and i was a multi-millionaire, i’d have a fair chance.

    Having a degree, does not mean that you are intelligent. I know many stupid people who have good degrees. It is not a controversial statement to say that Bush is below par in the intelligence department, particularly, when it comes to speaking and forming logical strands of thought.

    Mahons: I have posted under no other name. What name do you think i used?

    ‘and my faith doesn’t depend on my geography,’
    Your choice of faith clearly does, and its severity. The reasons are obvious, there is no point me explaining them here.

    ‘though I suspect your lack of faith does.’

    Really how so? Why does being Irish, coming from a catholic family, make me likely to be an atheist?

    ‘He’s issued enough support of Hamas to convince me he is a fan. ‘

    Absolutely ridiculous. I simply cannot understand your thinking.

  80. Why the continuous snark, Guba?

  81. Snark?

    I made a comment that the sentence is incoherent. It is, and Mr. Bush is known for his uncouth speaking style. To be honest, i think i understand what he is saying now, so, technically it may be coherent, but, a listener should not have to struggle to elucidate the speech of a President.

    I could say alot worse about Mr. Bush. I could call him ‘nasty’ or a ‘prick’, but he is neither. He is not a clever man, certainly not to be President. His disastrous prior failure in business shows that this is inherent.

    He is deeply unpopular, the most unpopular President in modern history. He is a failure.

  82. I think Bush was right on one thing, he was ‘misunderestimated’.

  83. Get your priorities checked out Alison.

    ?

    Fuck off Seamus

  84. "I’m sure he did, that sentence is incoherent."

    Not unless you are illiterate.

  85. >>Can you tell me why we should accept the version of events you lay out and not this one Noel?<<

    Alison, both versions (I am talking about the version portrayed in the bullet points below your sentence) are not incompatible.
    I never denied that rockets were fired into Israel. But the following facts are very relevant:

    1. it is not clear the were fired by Hamas. Phantom’s link yesterday indicated that they were not, were in fact fired by dissidents which Hamas tried to stop and arrest.

    2. The number of rockets crossing the border was minimal compared to before the ceasefire and, most importantly, was decreasing. From about 400 rockets per month prior to the ceasefire to 9 per month afterwards, and only 2 (yes TWO) precisely in the month before Israel decided it was time to end the ceasefire.
    This would even suggest it was not the rockets but in fact the very lack of them (coupled with the upcoming election and the need to look hawkish) that prompted Israel’s decision to resume attacks.

    3. While the rockets had murderous intent and were bound to hurt someone sometime, and obvously caused a lot of discomfort (although nothing near as much as the discomfort cauased to Gazans by Israel’s continued blockade even during the ceasefire), none of these rockets killed anyone, and they therefore did not justify a response that has has hitherto left 300 children dead and which everyone knew beforehand would kill countless innocent civilians.

    As for the your other reasons for ending the ceasefire you mention, the story about an alleged Hamas member who was planning to dig a tunnel from Gaza into Egypt (!) and then to go back to the border and lure Israeli soldiers away and then drug them and capture them and take them back somewhere…
    obviously shows you are all too willing to suspend disbelief on hearsay to prop up a perspective and if anything reveals undermines your arguments even further.

    >>But most importantly. When have you ever read here a highly critical assessment of Hamas and its handling of the ongoing situation both before or during this present conflict by any of Israel’s detractors?<<

    Well, I have criticised them often enough, and I can easily show you many examples here. Certainly much more than you have ever criticised Israel, which I don’t think you did once in the past weeks.

    So if that’s "most importantly.", it more or less destroys your own argument. We are the ones looking at it objectively, you with your trite slogans are merely saying Israel Right Or Wrong.

  86. >>>Alison, both versions (I am talking about the version portrayed in the bullet points below your sentence) are not incompatible. I never denied that rockets were fired into Israel<<

    You most certainly have strongly diminished this argument as ever relevant with regard to Israel’s right to defence Noel in so far as how this present situation came about. Why do you do that?

    >>1. it is not clear the were fired by Hamas. Phantom’s link yesterday indicated that they were not, were in fact fired by dissidents which Hamas tried to stop and arrest<<.

    If it is not clear they were fired by Hamas what is your point? Do you honestly think Hamas do all they could to prevent this situation escalating? There were many such violations, including dozens of rockets and mortars fired into Israel during the so-called ceasefire. And there was also sniper fire against Israeli farmers, anti-tank rockets and rifle shots fired at soldiers in Israel, and not one but two attempts to abduct Israeli soldiers and bring them into Gaza. But no that’s all just not relevant according to you. Or it merits one sentence or a well placed word – versus the bookloads you have written here condemning Israel.

    >>2 and 3.<<

    what evidence do you have to support this Noel. You so quickly dismiss ALL claims made by those who support Israel and yet platform your own as ‘more likely’ truths. That’s not an argument. Are you merely countering that is ridiculous to claim Hamas abducts Israeli soldiers via kidnapping tunnels? Why is it ridiculous? Abu Duaba was indicted in the Beer Sheva District Regional Court.

    You have often argued that Israel’s response has been outrageously over the top have you not? The loss of a handful of Hamas MILITANTS as you yourself note (among them Mazen Sa’adeh, a Hamas brigade commander, and Mazen Nazimi Abbas, a commander in the Hamas special forces unit) to neutralize an immediate threat to their soldiers does NOT necessitate a random barrage of rockets fired at Israeli citizens Noel.

    >>Well, I have criticised them often enough, and I can easily show you many examples here. <<

    Your own answer here in response to points illustrating Hamas DID break the ceasefire or at least by any reasonable estimate accept that it COULD have played a big fat part by firing off at citizens – clearly shows you unwilling to accept ANY balance in this argument. For the simple reason that you don’t believe Israel has any right to defend itself and that IT is the one preventing peace. That is your argument. With it you have little claim to condemn Israel or its supporters as you do and pretend to be on the GOOD side.

    There is little factual reasoning in any of what you say. You have merely exposed your own desire to only ever believe what Hamas and it’s cheerleaders have to say.

    In short you are no better than the rest of us as observers of this hideous situation in both your own blind support of the side you have chosen and dismissive approach to the lives of ALL those on the ground.

    Your hatred of Israel’s actions, and her motives is NO better or worse than the contempt shown here for terrorists (though you frequently pretend it is). Except that when all is said and done you are continually backing up an organisation steeped in ill sorted Jew hatred and with no desire at all to co-exist with Israel.

    And yes my support of Israel is pretty unequivocal and I make little attempt to play the mealy mouthed politician over this like you do Noel.

    The main basis for my support is that Israel NEEDS to live in peace and has shown willing – and the Palestinians do not. They have made it their life’s work to continue their hatred. The way all terrorists do.

  87. If Israel has shown willing to make peace can anyone explain how they hav been treating the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank?
    The PA have been playing ball with their occupiers, and the Israelis have very graciously:
    1) Not withdrawn any settlements (or indeed meaningfully tried to stop settler violence)
    2) Not withdrawn any roadblocks (there are about six hundred I believe)

    Not exactly conducive to motivating the palestinians to accept non-violence is it?
    (By the way I fully recognise the counter-productive nature of the violence emanating from Gaza)

    As an aside, I really cant understand commentators who I respect repeatedly stating Noel is pro-Hamas.
    He has repeatedly stated he is against them. If somebody criticised the actions of, say, the British Army in Northern Ireland or the counter-terrorist actions of the Saudi government would people accuse them of being an IRA supporter or Al-Queada supporter?

    On a general comment regarding ATW, I fully understand why commentators are anti-Palestinian, but the unequivocal support of the Israeli side (the only perfect govt in the world it seems, unless its not killing enough people) does perplex me a bit.

  88. Andy

    Many of the roadblocks ( and the fence ) were put in place to stop violence and suicide zombies from coming in. It is the fence and checkpoints that has put an end to that.

    I’d like the checkpoints and fence down too, but how do you know that Hamas and its friends won’t just restart the suicide attacks?

    Yes, the settlements do need to be looked at with a hard eye.

    But first, the violence stops. The acceptable level of violence is zero. Then talk. About everything.

  89. In what other country in the world do the occupied have to take a vow of no-violence before the occupiers decide whether or not to withdraw?

    Suicide bombings have stopped – and you are right that the wall was a point in that (dont look much like a fence to me though!). Yet the roadblocks and consequent impact on local economy remain.

    For the record, I never had a big problem with israeli assassinations (except a few) and their wall – it was a predictable response to the tactics of the second intifada.

  90. The settlements are a drain on Israeli PR and military resources. They are also completely unjustifiable outside of a bibical narrative about promised land etc.
    They need to go now.

    Although of course the imbecilic actions of Hamas et al in Gaza has probably delayed that point for some time.

  91. I saw it last fall. It’s either a big fence or a small wall in the part that I saw.

    It’s awful that it was necessary to build the ugly thing. But it was.

    The rhetorical question is interesting, but violence actively works against any negotiations here

  92. Andy

    For myself – though I don’t imagine I am one of the commenters you respect though I would hazard a guess I am the only one you can refer to!

    My opinions have formed over a longer period of time. Noel has long been a commenter on this site pointing the finger of blame consistently at Israel since …forever.

    It’s only a pov eh? But where I used to make posts on anti-semitism and the Left I saw saw patterns emerge in that he would barely condemn the obvious sometimes and is then just as guilty of what he accuses others of.

    Anyway I have already explained my point of view with regard to what I view as his consistent position on Hamas above.

    To your other point. The world’s media is relentlessly stacked against Israel. With all due respect how comes that isn’t perplexing?

    The criticism here levelled at the Israel government for withdrawing from Gaza and watching it turn into a terror state (as predicted here) is more than any criticism levelled by Hamas fans at their poster boys – even if the tone of the critique doesn’t jive with the right-on point of view.

    There is a consistent approach on this site towards terrorism so it should NOT mean this comes as a surprise.

    Of course all that brands ATW and others "a hate site"?

    I think the fact that people are finally not prepared to accept the media portrayals and Israel hatred at face value is really pissing people off.

  93. Ross:

    Forgive me, i am not literate in pidgin English.

  94. OK dude, I take your point.

    Off Topic

    By the way, I think you said you were a fan of Italian wine. You may want to check out this little Spanish number which is reminiscent of the more "chewable" Italian reds:

    http://www.majestic.co.uk/find/Grape+Variety-is-Tempranillo/product-is-14125

    (Marques de Murrieta, in case the link doesnt work)

    Adios

  95. thanks.

    Never enough information on my Italian reds

  96. Alison
    I do respect you actually! You often have a pretty unique take on things (ie you dont automatically fall into the "conservative" or "liberal" camps on all issues), and you tend to back things up with evidence, logial thought etc.
    I certainly dont agree with all you post, but i do agree with some of it.

    My personal take on criticism of Israel is that gets let off some things too easy(ultimately the occupation of arab land), and gets too hard a time on others (eg assassinations).

    With regard to your broader analysis of Noel, I must say i do actually recognise what you say to some extent (sorry to be a traitor Noel – I was supporting you before!) but still dont think he is a supporter of Hamas.

    I do think though, (and you notice this in people with a variety of viewpoints on the web) that he will often take up a stance which automatically opposes that of his opponents, without always acknowledging the strengths of their arguments. Probably because he thinks the positives of Israel are well covered by others here.

    However, i do think that he ackowledges opposing arguemetns more than many others.

    Such are my musings anyway…

  97. >>If it is not clear they were fired by Hamas what is your point?<<

    ?? Well,… that people here never tire of saying that the Israeli offensive is a response to Hamas rockets..
    … WHAT DO YOU MEAN: WHAT IS MY POINT?

    >> But no that’s all just not relevant according to you<<

    I never said these attacks were not relevant. I said several times they were. I also said, however, that there is little or no indication that they were fired by Hamas

    Which is, after all, the justification trumpeted here for an offensive that has already killed 1000 people no less!

    >> Are you merely countering that is ridiculous to claim Hamas abducts Israeli soldiers via kidnapping tunnels?<<

    No I am not. Let me speak for myself, your comment is full of ridiculous misrepresentations of what I said, as you are otherwise totally unable to fight out your argument.
    You present here as genuine a story of a guy who was arrested supposedly ON HIS WAY TO do something, after which he PLANNED to do something else and, following that WE CLAIM he was PROBABLY going round on his day’s work with some other assumed scanario- i.e. total speculation and guesswork. Not only that, but all that smoke is taken as a justification for launching a war that kills hundreds of civilians!!

    If those Israeli soldiers and investigators are as good at reading other people’s motivations and thoughts as you are, they probably came to the same absurd conclusions.

    >>The loss of a handful of Hamas MILITANTS as you yourself note …to neutralize an immediate threat to their soldiers does NOT necessitate a random barrage of rockets fired at Israeli citizens<<<

    Are you saying the killing of “a handful” (now just imagine if Id used that word to describe 7 dead Israelis!) of people in Gaza by Israelis does not justify a response, but the killing of NOBODY in Israel by Gazans justifies a response that kills 300 dead children??
    Do you really mean that?

    >>Your own answer here in response to points illustrating Hamas DID break the ceasefire <<

    Nobody here has illustrated Hamas broke the ceasefire. Even if you think their inability or unwillingness to stop others firing rockets at Israel – which killed nobody – constitutes a breach of ceasefire, even that has not been proven, and even if it were it clearly does not justify mass slaughter on the other side.

    What’s more it logically means that Hamas cannot be accused of firing them, yet this is exactly what you and countless others have been saying for weeks, and then using that lie as a justification for a war that has killed so many.

    >> no better than the rest of us as observers of this hideous situation<<

    Wait a minute – since when has it been a “hideous situation” for you? Why, just last week you were jubilant at the situation, and calling for more of it and more killings even if innocents are being killed. Well, more innocents have been killed since then. And their blood is on the hands of all who gave support for this carnage when they knew what was going on.

    >> you are continually backing up an organisation steeped in ill sorted Jew hatred<<

    I’ve explained this a hundred times. But once more: I hate organisations like theirs, hate murderous fanaticism and hate calls for killings of innocents – in short the kind of things Hamas and people on this site indulge in all the time.

    But in the end they are mere words – more than them I hate slaughter. A bomber flown by a liberal democrat killing civilians is much more evil than all the hate orgies in the world.

    And this must be the opinion of everyone who puts people before race, religion and political ideology.

    Look: If Hamas try to shoot a bomber down, I wish them success. If Israeli guards try to shoot someone in the act of planting a bomb, I wish them success too. Get it? It’s not about flags or symbols or races or “culture” or ideology – it’s about people.

    There is simply no way random rockets that were killing nobody justified a mass attack on a civilian area that kills hundreds of innocent civilians, and anybody who thinks there is should really question his or her humanity.

  98. Andy – I was mistaken, sorry and cheers. I tend to assume only the worse on ATW! Colour me jaded.

    I think politics has fallen to pieces so I am not easily swayed by traditional right and left lines.

    I like conservatve thought.

    The Left love to get all tribal and bitchy and claim all good as their own. They are simply unable to acknowledge that conservatives can and do have a wider range of opinions than they would comfortably allow for in their own ‘tribe’ and that much of it was good.

    Their whole ethos is tribe – colour and creed. Even the kiddies at the pro Hamas rallies – I swear they only go along because it’s tribal and they get to where a cool scarf. Hitzb’allah and co certainly have the market cornered on cool tribal logos.

    I discount women in that tribalism btw much as the Left lay claim to them as their champions.

    Women aren’t a minority group or a tribe. We pop up in black and white and ginger communities equally and we have as wide a range of opinions as men oddly enough.

    In America, the Right waded right into that little corner of politics and helped shovel gender into their god awful culture wars. It seems that stupid issue helped steer the train wreck that was their recent republican presidential campaign and so I often took issue with that over the course of the years with US input here and hence I get labelled a ‘feminist’.

    I think ‘isms’ are effing stupid.

    Fair enough to your other points. We could go back and forth on that one forever but it’s Friday!

  99. >>?? Well,… that people here never tire of saying that the Israeli offensive is a response to Hamas rockets..… WHAT DO YOU MEAN: WHAT IS MY POINT?<<

    The issue at that point Noel was whether or not there were any actually fired. You seem unsure yourself so please don’t present this disparate groups’ activities which you cannot even prove as evidence that Israel broken the damn ceasefire.

    >>I never said these attacks were not relevant. I said several times they were. I also said, however, that there is little or no indication that they were fired by Hamas<<Which is, after all, the justification trumpeted here for an offensive that has already killed 1000 people no less!<<

    And I asked you for evidence of that Noel. So where is it? I suggested you were as ready to build on non facts as the rest of us in making your accusations of Israel’s apparent massacre of civilians without provocation– and that you were unwilling to even hint at condemning the actions of Hamas as part of this problem.

    >> Are you merely countering that is ridiculous to claim Hamas abducts Israeli soldiers via kidnapping tunnels?<<

    My comment is not loaded with ridiculous misrepresentations of what you said. Your comment was chock full of little exclamation points over the allegations of kidnapping as though they would never happen and alleging it is completely beyond the bounds of human possibility that Hamas might undertake that. I also suggested that you might want to reflect on your assertion of Israel’s apparent overeaction by drawing an excellent parallel with an incident you yourself stated was evidence of Israel breaking the ceasefire.

    Which by the way you laid out as fact in an earlier comment to Daphne. And here you are doing it again.

    >>If those Israeli soldiers and investigators are as good at reading other people’s motivations and thoughts as you are, they probably came to the same absurd conclusions<<

    But your willingness to believe Hamas were set upon by Israel without provocation justifies their launching rockets DIRECTLY AT ISRAELI CIVILIANS which by your estimation now does NOT act as a provocation for war. In spite years of the same which frankly Israel has every right to protect istelf from. Israel IDENTIFIED HAMAS MILITANTS and that justifies attempted arbitrary murder of CIVILIANS by Hamas – or – isn’t a relevant factor?

    Did Hamas actions allllllllllll this time play no part in the death of the 300 dead children you keep trotting out to make your silly failed point about Israel’s overeaction?

    >>Nobody here has illustrated Hamas broke the ceasefire<<.

    Least of all you. You stated the chain of events up there in your comment Noel.

    But when faced with even a mere suggestion it MIGHT be Hamas to blame you dance around the evidence dismissively and blame Israel squarely for the death of 300 children as an overeaction accusing them of “mass slaughter” which Israel undertook with NO VALID REASON. As if they are barbaric people. Your emotive language is fully loaded in denial of any Hamas culpabliity.

    >>Wait a minute – since when has it been a “hideous situation” for you?<<

    Since Israel relinquished Gaza and gave back a legion of prisoners to cries of joy in Gaza – including the release of their poster boy – a man who smashed a baby’s head to pieces in front of his Jewish father. We’ve funneled more money than bombs into that shithole and for what?

    >> And their blood is on the hands of all who gave support for this carnage when they knew what was going on<<

    Emotive language again. But not on Hamas – there you go again.

    >>I’ve explained this a hundred times. But once more: I hate organisations like theirs, hate murderous fanaticism and hate calls for killings of innocents – in short the kind of things Hamas and people on this site indulge in all the time<<.

    So call it squarely then. Each and every time there is a whiff of a suggestion Hamas might be up to their necks in shit simply because it is pointed out by people whose opinion does not jive with yours you ignore that and go straight for Israel’s jugular.

    >>But in the end they are mere words – more than them I hate slaughter. A bomber flown by a liberal democrat killing civilians is much more evil than all the hate orgies in the world<<. Look: If Hamas try to shoot a bomber down, I wish them success. If Israeli guards try to shoot someone in the act of planting a bomb, I wish them success too. Get it? It’s not about flags or symbols or races or “culture” or ideology – it’s about people<<

    Yes I ‘get it’.

    And there is only one ideology hellbent on exercising that kind of individual action, taking civilians with them Noel, and Israel is up there warning them and then grinding them into dust.

    >>There is simply no way random rockets that were killing nobody justified a mass attack on a civilian area that kills hundreds of innocent civilians, and anybody who thinks there is should really question his or her humanity<<

    Equally there is simply no way that a preemptive attack on fully labelled Hamas militants with a history of kidnapping, justified **ANOTHER** barage of rockets into Israel’s **CIVILIAN** population. And anyone who cannot even factor that in when making those same allegations of Israel should really question HIS humanity.

  100. >>Your hatred of Israel’s actions, and her motives is NO better or worse than the contempt shown here for terrorists (though you frequently pretend it is)<<

    I never "pretended" anything is wrong with the contempt shown here for terrorists. My issue is with the contempt shown here for the lives of innocent people. Including by you.

    >>The issue at that point Noel was whether or not there were any actually fired.<<

    No, it wasn’t, because I never disputed that. I actually mentioned (and God knows how many times, on this thread and many others) the number of rockets fired at Israel. Reades are invited to look back and see which of us is right and wrong.

    My point was:
    – the number of rockets had falled drastically (from about 400 a month to 2 the last month – October)
    This did not justify the Israeli response at the beginning of November, and certainly does not justify a massacre of innocents.
    – Phantom’s link suggests that Hamas didn’t fire the few rockets that were fired, and that Hamas in fact tried to stop others firing them.

    >>your willingness to believe Hamas were set upon by Israel without provocation justifies their launching rockets DIRECTLY AT ISRAELI CIVILIANS<<

    There you are again, telling lies about what I think and say, whereas I wrote it clearly enough.

    O’Dwyer said recently that those who try to read minds usually can’t even read simple words. In your case he was right.

    But I’m fed up with your lies, and propose we settle it with a bet. We go over the threads and if we can find half a dozen examples of where I said such rockets are NOT justified, you pay 100 Quid to David. If you can’t find the six, or if you find even one where I said those rockets were justified, I’ll pay the cash.

    You won’t take up the bet, of course, becuase you know you’re telling lies. But this might at least show others here what a liar you are.

    But the best is still to come

    >>The criticism here levelled at the Israel government for withdrawing from Gaza and watching it turn into a terror state (as predicted here) is more than any criticism levelled by Hamas fans at their poster boys<<

    Do I understand you correctly here? Are you actually saying the "Hamas fans" on ATW are real bad because they never criticise their lads, whereas the redoubtable Israel backers crticise their side – but that the criticism is for it not being more hard-line!!

  101. Noel

    This thread started with your nose out of joint that I suggested others here had rebutted your arguments extremely well.

    You started hopping around like a loon directing people to another thread . In so doing you made some claims of your own and in all my comments so far I have countered your own nonsense in proclaiming some kind of factual victory over Phantom where you had none.

    In point of fact I put a question to you. You countered. I countered again using the events which led up to the outbreak of war.

    Your issue is most assuredly not limited to the contempt people show for terrorists.

    Don’t be disingenius Noel. You are using this current situation to platform your own position on Israel like any one else here and it is fair for me and others to judge that which I have. Overall there is nothing more correct about your opinion than anyone elses but you are simply arguing everyone else’s facts were hot air and Israel holds the blame for this war.

    " the justification trumpeted here for an offensive that has already killed 1000 people no less!"

    "By any standard, an attack in such a relatively peaceful context that kills 300 children is entirely criminal".

    Criminal? Wow. A peaceful context? But I just showed you it was anything but.

    I have already trawled through the facts you allege created a "criminal act" in starting this war TWICE now. I got your points Noel and responded to them.

    You maintain noone can prove Hamas broke the ceasefire but proclaimed your own facts as "very relevant" as the basis for your opinion on who should be blamed for this war.

    So I am not telling "lies". I am challenging your position, a consistent one, with regards to what justified what action.

    Finally after dancing around the countered facts as the basis for your accusation of a "criminal act" and other emotive language about those kids again (for which you hold Israel responsible)… you then put forward an analogy regards Hamas and Israel and I responded to it on how I view that analogy.

    cheerio

  102. so Guba what do you have two leberal arts degrees…lol Al Gore and John Kerry were both rich and couldn’t become president.

    and by your statements I take it since Bush has been the worst you respected the real best president of the last century Nixon,

    Thank you for providing the perfect example of Bush Derangement syndrom