. We all know just how oppressed those poor Palestinians that inhabit Gaza are. Why the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool bemoans that “Peace talks fail to hearten Gazans.” Funny how the BBC seems to have missed reporting what DOES hearten Gazans. Can you guess what it is? Yes, that’s right – suicide bombing missions against those pesky Jews. It seems the majority of Gazans both support and relish that – but Aleem has nothing to say about that. Who’s surprised?
GAZING AT GAZA
Bookmark the permalink.
“The news was ABOUT Jews and ABOUT non-Jews. Evidently, you are far too dumb to get it.”
It was also about security guards and non-security guards. Note terrorists and non-terrorists were involved, as were soldiers and non-soldiers, males and females, children and adults. What part of my arguments makes you think that, in the midst of all those other factors, they were focused on or motivated by Jewishness?
It was also about security guards and non-security guards.
Only in your fantasy Alex.
Two Israeli civilians (civilians by any sane person’s definition) were murdered by an Arab terrorist who infiltrated Israel dressed as a woman. Even though attacks in that part of the country are rare the BBC did not report it. Full stop.
All the rest is the result of your attempts to convince others that nothing worth reporting happened.
Your unhealthy obsession with continuing this long dead discussion is disturbing.
Who says Alex is sane?
“– It was also about security guards and non-security guards.
“Only in your fantasy Alex.”
I’m not sure what you were saying. Was nobody in either of the stories a security guard or was everyone?
There were lots of differences between the two stories. You postulated that the death of Jews at Arab hands in one and Arabs at (what seemed at the time to be) Jewish hands was the difference. I postulated that another of the many different factors might also be highly relevant. I posted other stories to show that there is a precedent for the kind of editorial decision I suggested. In response, you stamped your virtual foot, shouted “But they were civilians”, called me an anti-Semite and refused to back up your disgusting accusation.
“Your unhealthy obsession with continuing this long dead discussion is disturbing.”
For some reason I feel compelled to defend myself against the extremely offensive ad hominem arguments I am being subjected to by you and Nearly Oxfordian.
I feel absolutely no compulsion or obligation to respond to your demands Alex.
It is you who stamp your feet and insist I explain myself, yet again.
Go back and read once more what I’ve already said in previous posts. I’ve nothing new to add and I’m under no obligation whatsoever to prove or explain anything, just because you say so.
This is not a court of law nor is it a debating society. No points are awarded and there are no judges.
You are free to say whatever you wish, I am free to say you’re talking rubbish. That’s my opinion and to ask me to prove it’s rubbish is absurd.
To quote Groucho Marx, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them, well… I have others.”
“For some reason I feel compelled to defend myself against the extremely offensive ad hominem arguments I am being subjected to by you and Nearly Oxfordian”
ALL those arguments are supported by documented facts. It’s your screeching antisemitic excuses for the BBC’s lies that are extremely offensive.