Another day and the continued BBC onslaught against Israel shows no sign of abating. During this morning’s Cormac Murphy O’Connor produced programme (Featuring Thought for the day by Jerome Murphy O’Connor – keep it in the family, eh?) there was a truly wretched item just after the 8am news which started with the UN special rapporteur, and noted anti-Israeli activist Richard Falk whinging on about the “daily atrocities” that Israel is committing. This set up things for Jeremy Al Bowen who rose to the challenge once again asserting that he believed Israel’s military strategy could not succeed as well as being politically non-sustainable. Next we segued into Richard Haas, the current president of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Haas gave a modest defence of Israel, though he is a keen advocate of the “Two State Solution” and shills for the PA. Since when did holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas come to represent moderation? He also suggested that the current Middle East situation could take a few lessons from Northern Ireland where the IRA were told they could not bomb and shoot their way into government. (This somewhat surprised me since I have lived through three decades of IRA bombing and shooting and now they are in government! Go figure.) The BBC has moved into full-on support for Hamas and I will be damned if this is not documented here on a daily basis. Israel fights to defend it’s people from Hamas Islamic savagery, the BBC seeks to undermine this at every junction.What is it that drives such vicious anti-Israel feeling at the BBC?
BBC ATROCITIES
Bookmark the permalink.
Hamada Abu Qammar reporting for the BBC:
“I was sleeping with my sisters and suddenly I woke up,” Reem Baloosha, 13, told me, describing the night two days ago when her five sisters were killed in an Israeli air strike.
“I found myself under the rubble, the stones were crushing me. I looked around, my sister was under the rubble, she was dead.”
I visited the family in Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the Gaza Strip.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7804875.stm
A Palestinian TV report on the same sad incident:
[Girl] “We were sleeping 7 girls in the room. We were asleep and didn’t know what was happening. In the morning all the bricks were on top of my head, and the heads of all my sisters. My 4 year old sister next to me was dead.”
[Interviewer] “How many were you?”
[Girl] “Seven.In the other room were my mother, my father, my yonger brother and another sister, who is 13 days old. I say, Hamas is the cause, in the first place, of all wars.“
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/palestinian-girl-loses-family-in.html
Even Palestinian TV is giving a more balanced view of events than the BBC.
(Hamada Abu Qammar, like his colleague Rushdi Aboualouf, is another of the local stringers whose name has more than one spelling and works for more than just the BBC. The BBC is now carrying the following statement at the end of its online reports: “Israel is not currently permitting international journalists to cross into Gaza.” If Jeremy Bowen had been in Gaza and had interviewed the poor girl, would we have heard where she placed the blame? I don’t think so.)
Were you aware that the BBC were reporting very quietly that:
“More than 400 people have been killed by Ugandan rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo in attacks since Christmas day, aid agency Caritas says.
…
An eyewitness told the BBC that five people in Faradje had their lips cut off by Lord’s Resistance Army fighters.
They were told that it was a warning not to speak ill of the rebels.”
Odd that this has received no TV or radio news coverage that I have spotted and is hidden away on the web.
So why the disparity in coverage?
Are Congolese lives worth less than Palestinian lives?
Are black lives worth less that white lives?
Are the Ugandan rebels less evil than the Israelis?
Or is just that the BBC hatred for Israel removes all sense of proportion from their news coverage?
So why the disparity in coverage?
And why don’t the BBC give equal time to Albanian elections as to US ones?
InterestedParty | 30.12.08 – 12:13 pm |
Excellent points about enabling violence. I see this as related to what the BBC’s arch-enemy, Pres. Bush, referred to as “the soft racism of lowered expectations”.
Anat
and if they hide behind civilians the war-crime is theirs, not yours.
This part of your otherwise admirable argument isn’t true.
If they hide behind civilians, you have to be damn careful not to hit those civilians and be prepared to forego attacking those targets unless there’s a compelling military advantage secured by doing so.
Yesterday, on an earlier thread, I noted that during a BBC interview an ISM activist had inadvertently let slip that civilians in Gaza were receiving warnings ahead of possible Israeli strikes (the blinkered BBC interviewer didn’t pick up on this). Pounce pointed out that the IDF is behind these warnings; today’s Australian has an article on the subject:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html
If they hide behind civilians, you have to be damn careful not to hit those civilians and be prepared to forego attacking those targets unless there’s a compelling military advantage secured by doing so.
Anonymous | 30.12.08 – 5:19 pm | #
Exactly right. And since all Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists operate from behind civilians, there is definitely a compelling military reason in this case.
The situation is worded in Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, PART IV: Section 1: Article 51:7
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
‘The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations.’
.
Paul | 30.12.08 – 1:03 pm |
Gaza poses no existential threat to Israel. The rockets it fires at Sderot and other towns have killed fewer than 20 people in 7 years. One hundred and seventy five times as many Israelis have been killed in traffic accidents in the same period.
Israelis know this • that’s why they worry more about traffic than terrorism
To me, this is where your – and the BBC’s – argument fails. Gaza most certainly does represent at least an existential threat to Israel. Have you forgotten what’s in the Hamas charter?
This is just another phase in the same argument I was having with “Two-Staters” over twenty years ago, many of them liberal Jews. At the time, the argument was that Israel should accept a Palestinian state because then they (the Palestinians) would have something to lose. These sympathizers simply would not accept – and they still don’t today – that the Palestinians would use this as an opportunity to create a new war machine.
At the time, I was arguing that if people who were more dedicated to the destruction of Israel than to preserving the lives of their own children (yes, the Golda Meir chestnut) were given their own sovereign territory without serious concessions (which the Two-Staters never seem to like talking about, oddly), they would just load up for bear, and the attacks on Israel would be even worse in the future. This was long before any wall was built.
So what happened when the Israelis listened to people like you and gave up Gaza? They elected Hamas and a war-like state has been created. Rather than creating a livable place for their own people – supposedly what they wanted all along – they destroyed anything the filthy Jews left behind, including houses which they could have lived in and greenhouses in which they could have grown food to feed themselves. Like the BBC’s beloved Arafat before them, Hamas has trousered the massive amounts of aid money sent to them, or used it to buy weapons, and let their people rot in their own filth, instead of feeding their people and creating a useful society. The rockets, attacks on outposts, attacks on settlements, etc., haven’t stopped, ever. In other words, the death cult continued to triumph; they still have nothing to lose.
If Gaza and the West Bank were turned into Palestine tomorrow, then the Palestinians would continue to associate violence with success. The usual Arab suspects would then pour more money and weapons into this new Palestine, which would then become a very real, physical threat to Israel.
There is no other way to look at it. Gaza is already proof of that. Come to think of it, Hezbollah in Lebanon is almost the same thing. Once they got comfortable and felt that they had their own place in southern Lebanon, they attacked Israel, claiming “self defense”, of course.
So Gaza is at the very least an existential threat to Israel, and a very real one on occasion. This is not understood by the BBC, or by the Leftoid media, or by the casual critic of Israel.
To kill more Palestinians in three days than would be killed by Pally missiles in a hundred years, that certainly looks disproportionate.
Right. So, how many Israelis should die before Israel may respond? And is there some sort of chart to go with that to ensure a proportional response? If you can’t answer that, then you’ll have to find a different argument.
The only way it can make sense is if you see destroying Hamas as a crucial part of defeating global jihad.
And even then it will only make sense morally if Israel follows through and thoroughly extirpates the jihadis.
If Israeli politicians are just grandstanding for election purposes, that’s downright criminal.
Again, there’s more than an imaginary danger here. So even if there’s a bit of politicization here (inevitable when dealing with humans, I suppose), there’s still no way to deny a very real threat.
If they just kill a lot of innocents without finishing off Hamas, then the whole project seems to me morally indefensible.
That would never be Israel’s goal, as it doesn’t make any sense. The mirror of that is, however, the goal of many a jihadi.
But since you brought it up, let’s face it: this has been going on for years now, and Israel has not yet finished off Hamas but has killed a lot of innocents (not on purpose, but that doesn’t matter, right?). Therefore, wouldn’t you say that the whole project is already morally indefensible? I mean, this has been going on for years and years already, Hamas hasn’t been wiped out, innocent Palestinians have died. Why not say the whole enterprise is indefensible now, and has been for some time?
I hope they will sort out Hamas once and for all. Until it becomes clear that they have reneged on this noble aim, I’ll back them. But if they just kill lots of more or less random Palestinians and then pull out, talking about having ‘sent a message’, then they will deserve the world’s censure.
This is a nice sentiment, but seems almost impossible to accomplish. The only people who can truly wipe out Hamas are the Palestinians themselves. Also, I’m not sure you’re being entirely fair portraying military acts by Israel as just killing “lots of more or less random Palestinians”. The vast majority of targets are Hamas or other jihadi types, and all IDF actions are targeted at military goals. As you know, they even inform the Palestinians beforehand, advising them to get out of the area. Bringing children to a gun fight is not Israel’s idea.
As considerate as you’re trying to be, you’re treading down a very dangerous path here.
Anat
Please keep up your great postings.
You Israelis do have some friends in the West. Good luck !
David Preiser (USA) | 30.12.08 – 4:57 pm |
Thanks I didn’t know that about Bush and that he said that explicitly (I looked it up and found interesting stuff from that root, thanks) I may respect him more one day, But it doesn’t surprise me he said it at all in our times. I have some deep criticisms of Bush, which I won’t bore people here, but the way he is portrayed especially by the BBC is one of the most conventionally dull aspects of conventional metropolitan useless wisdom that we are all forced to enjoy, and which serves a less than usefull understanding of the world. Sums up the beeb for me 🙂
Addendum to my post at 30.12.08 – 5:29 pm, re ‘If they hide behind civilians, you have to be damn careful not to hit those civilians and be prepared to forego attacking those targets unless there’s a compelling military advantage secured by doing so.’
In addition to the above about the Geneva Conventions and the compelling reason, you may like to note that Israel has numerous times called off operations for precisely such reasons. Israel also develpped two additional methods precisely for compliance in this sense with the Geneva Conventions: the advance warning of civilians and the precision targetting of terrorists.
Concerning advance notice, you may remember BBC reporting in 2006 on the supposed ‘atrocity’ in such notice, in that it caused the Lebanese civilians to leave their places. The BBC just failed to mention that this is precisely the purpose of the advance notice prescribed by the Conventions, and that Israel does this despite losing in this way the military advantage of surprise.
Conerning precision targetting aimed at getting terrorists and avoiding civilians, do google up the derogatory term ‘Israel’s assassination policy’. The first result is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1258187.stm
.
David Vance,
You misunderstand the BBC’s understanding of Northern Ireland. They’re not saying that the IRA could shoot and bomb their way into government. They’re saying that it should have been given to them in the first place. It’s the same thing they tried with Afghanistan not so long ago (and probably will again).
According to this belief system, violence from the IRA was just a response to the initial error of not giving them what they wanted from the start. If Britain and the dreaded Paisley had brought the IRA into the government 30 years ago, none of that violence would have happened. With this mindset, the Palestinian situation is perfectly analogous.
Paul | 30.12.08 – 1:03 pm
In Afghanistan around 30,000 people have been killed, Taleban and civilians included.
More than 100 British servicemen have been killed in action.
Isn’t that “disproportionate”?
Aren’t you glad that “only” around 100 British soldiers have been killed or would you prefer more?
International law defines proportionate force as that required to neutralise a threat, which is exactly what Israel is doing.
Anybody who complains that Israel’s actions are “disproportionate” is really saying they wish more Jews were dead.
Tough shit!
Am Yosroel Chai!
David Preiser (USA) | 30.12.08 – 5:36 pm
Gaza most certainly does represent at least an existential threat to Israel.
Are we speaking the same language? An existential threat is defined (see link) as a threat to the very existence of a nation.
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1135
Yes, I believe Hamas would kill every Israeli they could. I believe they’ve been trying their best over the past years to kill as many as possible with their rockets. But they have succeeded in killing fewer than 20.
But Israel is a nation of more than 7.3 million people.
You are exaggerating if you continue to insist that these poorly trained and badly led buffoons are an existential threat.
.
…. given their own sovereign territory without serious concessions (which the Two-Staters never seem to like talking about, oddly), they would just load up for bear, and the attacks on Israel would be even worse in the future………. If Gaza and the West Bank were turned into Palestine tomorrow, then the Palestinians would continue to associate violence with success..
You were right then, and you would be right now. The main concession should be that a Pally state should not have armed forces of any kind beyond a lightly armed Police (and even that should be under international control for the first ten years).
how many Israelis should die before Israel may respond? And is there some sort of chart to go with that to ensure a proportional response?
Yes, there is some sort of grim calculus. Governments have been adopting flexible response, measured escalation etc for decades, if not centuries. My answer would be to respond to EVERY Israeli death with a single targeted assassination of a Hamas terrorist.
No-one could say one-for-one wasn’t proportionate.
Anat
and if they hide behind civilians the war-crime is theirs, not yours.
This part of your otherwise admirable argument isn’t true.
If they hide behind civilians, you have to be damn careful not to hit those civilians and be prepared to forego attacking those targets unless there’s a compelling military advantage secured by doing so.
Anonymous | 30.12.08 – 5:19 pm
I suggest you actually read the Geneva Conventions and related stuff before you accuse Israel, or anybody else, of committing war crimes.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000170.html
Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that “the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict,” according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 – 130).
…
Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.) Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that “utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)”. (Dinstein, p. 130)
Also from my link above:
“Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.” (Dinstein, ibid). In short, Hezbollah is legally (and morally) responsible for any Lebanese civilian casualties which result from Israeli bombardment of villages, homes or urban areas containing missiles, rockets or armed Hezbollah guerrilla forces—so long as Israel is aiming at these military targets, as it has.
Dinstein further notes that “An obvious breach of the principle of proportionality would be the destruction of a whole village–with hundreds of civilian casualties–in order to eliminate a single enemy sniper. In contrast, if — instead of a single enemy sniper — an artillery battery would operate from within the village, such destruction may be warranted” under the laws of war. (pp. 122-123)
Are we speaking the same language? An existential threat is defined (see link) as a threat to the very existence of a nation.
I suggest you google “Hamas Charter” then read it.
Hamas is a threat to Israel’s existence. Its stated aim is to destroy the state of Israel and to kill every Jew it can find. Why doubt their intent?
Here, I’ve done your homework for you:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”
David:
My apologies for the delay, I have been to see Madagascar Two with my daughter.A more rounded and balanced view of Africa.
http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=100542&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=300
Trifecta 6:35
I am married to an African and have lived in W. Africa. And when they go to war, they don’t care much about legalities and UN resolutions !
I can’t believe some of the posts above about “international law “.
When you have to fight for survival, you fight !
Am Yosroel Chai!
Biodegradable | 30.12.08 – 6:08 pm
Should read:
Am Yisroel Chai!
Paul | 30.12.08 – 6:17 pm |
You are exaggerating if you continue to insist that these poorly trained and badly led buffoons are an existential threat.
I apologize for my faulty definition of an existential threat. We both know that the current situation is not an immediate threat to the entire State of Israel. It is, however, an immediate threat to the lives of Israeli citizens, so Israel should be allowed to respond to that. I realize you acknowledge that, at least. The real threat will lie in the resulting Hamas-led Palestinian State, or even a Hamas-led Gaza without the current blockade.
An unarmed Palestinian State simply isn’t a a possibility. They’ll never grant that concession in a million years, and I don’t expect most critics of Israel would believe that Israel won’t continue to kill random, innocent Palestinians, and would say that they have a right to arms as an independent nation, etc. Can’t have a Muslim wedding these days without firing guns in the air. Guns are as much a part of the culture there as they are in some parts of the US.
Yes, there is some sort of grim calculus. Governments have been adopting flexible response, measured escalation etc for decades, if not centuries. My answer would be to respond to EVERY Israeli death with a single targeted assassination of a Hamas terrorist.
No-one could say one-for-one wasn’t proportionate.
That’s also physically impossible to achieve, as you well know. The civilian deaths are always due to the targeting of a single (or group) of Hamas terrorists. The only way to achieve your scenario is for Israel to refrain from responding at all unless they’re absolutely sure there can be no collateral damage. Now, how often do you think that will happen? It’s not a credible option, I’m afraid.
This proportionality is topy turvey. By knocking out a large chunk of Hamas capacity, including rocketeers,they are looking to save Israeli lives. Paul’s argument reads like a slasher movie script. You wait around until they have killed say 10 Israelis and then you wing off a missile at somewhere with ten of them. Or sneak around carrying out one for one assassinations trade offs. Its not a bloody game of chess when you each wait your turn.
David Preiser,
Thanks for your comments re the IRA, you are, of course, quite right. From a BBC perspective, appeasing and rewarding terrorists is essential because their terror is caused by their victims. In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king!
I love this website, but there are too many angels dancing on pins here !
Paul–
“But they have succeeded in killing fewer than 20”
You must have forgotten that between 2000 and 2005 Hamas and their partners in extremism slaughtered more than 1000 Israeli civilians on busses, in restaurants, at religious events.
Come on.
Grant,
I’m no angel! The BBC’s devilish loathing of freedom-loving Israel is visceral End of.
It is totally wrong to play the numbers game here. The question on proportionality is whether Israel’s actions are appropriate in relation to the threat posed to 250,00 of its citizens, after 8 years of taking casualties & of being terrorized – over 75% of the kids in Sderot are traumatised.
Of course it is proportionate – as Barak Obama implied in his statements when visiting Sderot in July: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing”
Have you heard this on the BBC?
I am beginning to think that the BBC has crossed the line from purveyors of bias to producers of agit prop. Witness the latest offering from one Jeremy Bowen, a piece on ‘Battle Lines’ for the BBC News Website. Imaging for a moment that Bowen had been given the task of writing a piece to bolster the morale on the Hamas Home Front through a medium they can access easily. Classically the propagandist would include some or all of the following; Thinks look bleak but there is light at the end of the tunnel. You are a great people, brilliantly led, with a resilient structure not easily overcome. The more pain you absorb now the greater your final victory. Your enemy is strong but vulnerable to unconventional warfare something at which you are well skilled. ( Recall a good example of where the militarily weak have humbled the strong.) Remind them that friends are with them in spirit if not in body. Warn them that the enemy will seek to undermine them psychologically as well as militarily but others have successfully resisted and defeated the enemy in the past. Now read Bowen’s article and see if you can tick all the boxes. Coincidence….of course how could you possibly believe anything else ?
Here’s a letter I’ve sent a cross party group of MPs who support Israel:-
Dear Sir,
RE: GAZA • COMMONS CENSURE MOTION OF THE BBC
One of the worst things that come to light in such times is the insidious way in which much of our media, particularly the BBC, acts as a propaganda arm for terrorists.
I thought Melanie Phillips gave a very good example of this in her Spectator blog 29.12:-
“The ineffable BBC reported in radio bulletins on Saturday that Israel ’s attack had ‘put back the chance of peace in the region’. Most sane people would think that the reason peace in the region had been put back was that Hamas was continuing to wage aggressive war.”
Is it not long overdue that a Commons motion of censure was tabled against the BBC for its anti-semitic reporting of the Israeli-Arab conflict?
It is conceivable that one can be an anti-Zionist and support the destruction of Israel by legitimate military means without being anti-semitic, but aiding & abetting the heirs of Adolf Hitler can be nothing but anti-semitic.
I fear that one of the reasons the above motion has not been tabled is that the evil the BBC subjects Israel to would be turned against the sponsors. It would indeed take an enormous amount of courage.
The BBC’s anti-semitism is a threat to our national security. The terrorist enemy we face is the one Israel faces. Because of this the BBC loses no propaganda opportunity to undermine our war against it. Before 7/7 there was ‘The Power of Nightmares’. Directly after 7/7 the BBC gave camera crews to Hamas Spokesman Dr Azzam Timimi and various other terrorist mouthpieces to make propaganda films. Then we had the suppression of the Balen Report.
The defence of Israel is the defence of civilisation. For the sake of British democracy and the honour of our nation I implore you to table this motion.
Yours respectfully,
Graeme Thompson
Graeme Thompson | 30.12.08 – 8:57 pm | #
Well done, Graeme.
I very much believe in such letters to MPs. For effect they should of course accumulate, but every single one counts.
.
Ok I give in.
I’ve just watched the bBC give the stage to a pal who lives in cambridge who while living in the Uk. Says Hamas didn’t start this, Hamas agreed to ceasefire and that even if Hamas was to stop defending itself Israel would still carry on murdering poor hamas operatives.
In fact according to this spokemans during the 6 month hudna hamas launched no rockets attacks from the Gaza strip but Isael did.
Just where do they get them from.
Anonymous
If Jeremy al Bowen is now the official Spokesman for Hamas, is the BBC the official organ of the Palestinians?
If so, perhaps they could pay the licence fee on our behalf.
If anyone wants to see a typical Irish Republican anti-semite and his putrid views regarding the current Israel anti-terror operation I’d recommend them to take at look at some of the most recent articles on this blogsite.
http://gaskinbalrog.blogspot.com/
Almost makes me ashamed to be Irish, but it only reinforces my disgust at the amoral policitcal philosophy of modern Irish republicanism.
I’d advise anyone reading this to pay him a visit and let your views be known. For some reason, he seems mainly to attract fellow travellers and syncophants……
Should be interesting to see if he’ll allow free speech or start trying to moderate/censor comments.
Stephen,
This Balrog guy is accidentally brilliant. Thanks for the link.
My favorite part is where he bitches about a statement from the former Israeli finance minister. Balrog claims that the minister gives away the Zionists’ “motivation” for attacking Hamas this time:
“The blame is on Hamas… When they took over, they didn’t bring in investors, they brought in instructors from the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.”
Exactly right! This is just what I was saying to Paul in our discussion above. But this Balrog silly person thinks this ian evil Zionist motivation for destruction? What is this guy smoking?
Well, maybe I don’t want any, because it also makes him think that cutting off oil sales to any Western country that supports Israel will cause a financial crisis in that Western country, but, um, not in the Arab countries which would lose all that revenue by not selling the oil to them. He must not understand what’s happening now with the rock-bottom oil prices.
Somewhere there’s a BBC editor waiting to hire this clown. His belief system will fit right in. He probably sees the same twisted IRA/PLO analogy too.
I’m glad you like the site guys.
Zionists are more than welcome to post on Balrog.
Stephen
I am glad that most Irish people support the Palestinian people as opposed to the Zionist squatters.
You are the odd man out on the island.
Looks like Chris has blown a gaskin.
Methinks he is a wind-up merchant. Do not give him any oxygen.
May even be a Gallowegian fellow traveller or a Livinghell groupie.
Sorry Ricky
South Armagh, Born and Bread!
David Preiser
Looks like they are doing it after all:
Israel declares ‘war to the bitter end’
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said they were doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but warned it would wage ‘all-out war’ on the militants until they were defeated.
“The goal of the operation is to topple Hamas,” Haim Ramon, the deputy to Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, said, in Israel’s first direct acknowledgment that regime change is its ultimate goal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4016432/Israel-declares-war-to-the-bitter-end-as-death-toll-rises.html
Paul | 31.12.08 – 1:04 pm |
Looks like they are doing it after all
Doing what, exactly? I haven’t seen anything that tells me Israel is about to deliberately wipe out thousands of innocents.
I guess they should stand down and wait until more Israelis die first, right?
“Stephen
I am glad that most Irish people support the Palestinian people as opposed to the Zionist squatters.
You are the odd man out on the island.”
More lies by Gaskin here. He seems to assume he speaks on behalf of the Irish people as a whole.
Gaskin lives in a little backwater called south Armagh, which probably has the highest density of extremist marxists/revolutionaries/murderers/terror sympathisers of any place in Ireland.
Gaskin, a man who idolises world leaders such as Ahmadinejad, Putin and praises past tyrants such as Stalin.
Also, I’ve noticed in the past you’re afraid to criticise your commie friends in China over the treatment of Tibet.
Anyway, it seems you don’t support national liberation movements unless they use violent means. I guess south Armagh IRA knuckledraggers such as yourself can only associate with those who wear badly knitted balaclavas and wield rusty ak-47s 🙂
Chris Gaskin31.12.08 – 12:34 pm
“Born and Bread”
One slice short of a loaf?
Has Jeremy Bowen reported about this yet?
On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari’a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.
Surely the BBC can find someone to comment on this lovely bit of anti-Christian ugliness from these brave freedom fighters. Or would that go against BBC editorial policy?
Stephen
Do you lack the ability to read?
“Gaskin, a man who idolises world leaders such as Ahmadinejad, Putin and praises past tyrants such as Stalin.”
1. I don’t idolise any of the men listed
2. I have critised both Stalin and Ahmadinejad in recent posts.
I suggest you read my posts before you post on them in the future.
“Also, I’ve noticed in the past you’re afraid to criticise your commie friends in China over the treatment of Tibet.”
LOL, I called on the Irish Olympic team to boycott the Olympics because of China’s Human Rights record.
What planet are you on Stephan?
Sue
Better that than no loaf at all 😉
One slice short of a loaf?
Sue | 31.12.08 – 5:39 pm | #
Crouton, actually. Catching the tail end of a spent loaf for posting his statements unchallenged, as overybody has already moved on to the next loaf.
.
Ahhh, a Zionist.
How much Palestinian blood do you have on your hands?
hmmm, the blood-sucking Jews even have their spindly talons entangled in this (zionist-loving) blogsite.
I see we have trolls here too.
The above is not Adelante
Chris Gaskin – you need professional help – you have come back too quickly and too often. Your view of the world is not amenable to normal discourse. Sounds to me you have the intellectual equivalent of AIDS – your critical faculties have been irreparably compromised. Sadly its a standard outcome for those of a left-liberal persuasion.
Left? Yes
Liberal? Not on your life!