Thursday, January 8, 2009

Islamic fanatics threaten new victims

Not a victim of Israeli aggression, but someone Muslim extremists have in their sights!

Yes, those innocent peace-loving innocent muslims have drawn up a hitlist of UK Jews they seek to exterminate.

They include businesspeople, politicians as well as celebrities and singers like Amy Winehouse.

I fear the situation in Gaza may well be more than just trying to keep a bunch of terrorist filth and their supporters down- which seems to include the bulk of Palestine as how else did Hamas gain power- but perhaps something wider.

Wherever we have people of the muslim persuasion, there always seem to be the extremists. We have Israel accused of totalarianism, but the real totalitarians are those who will kill you simply because of your faith. What a wonderful religion Islam is, it is certainly one of peace!

So we have the major coverage on the main news channels and it is great to see bloggers like Whale Oil, Little Green Footballs and Archbishop Cranmer pointing out a few things the BBC fails to mention.

But as we enjoy our major debate over the issue, it all makes you wonder whether we should show our thanks and support to the Israelis. UK blogger Guido Fawkes has uncovered a website where you can send cash to buy kosher pizza and coke for the Israeli Defence Force!


Psycho Milt said...

How much have you paid them for their excellent work killing refugees hiding in UN schools, Fairfacts?

KG said...

About the same as I paid 'em for bombing cowards who site mortars around schools and hospitals. :-)

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

And about the same as I paid them to kill the pricks who herded civilians back into their homes after the Israelis phoned to warn about a strike on the adjacent ammo dump.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely love it!! Hamas takes their little rockets, sit inside the school and fire them at Israel. And Milt reckons the Israelis are the bad guys.
I dont know why, but I still get floored every time when those defending terrorists can find justification some how for these actions.

Berg beheaded on camera - and they call it frustration at not being listened to.
Planes flown into buildings - and it's the yanks that did it themselves.
Blow up trains in England - and it's Blairs fault for sending troops to Iraq - They were pakistanis who set the English rail bombings up.

Now Hamas uses human shields but Israel are the bad guys.

How does these supporters walk and chew gum at the same time? Surely it would over tax their brain power.

Falafulu Fisi said...

PM said...
killing refugees hiding in UN schools, Fairfacts.

No, PM, the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) detected small arms firings at their helicopters from that school compound. It was shown on CNN this morning during Mr.Simon Peres's (Israeli President) interview.

C'mon PM, you must now know that these tactics used by terrorists are not new and I am surprised that you bring it up here to argue your point of being anti-Israeli. You cannot do nothing about a legitimate military target on the ground that there are civilians there, be it a mosque, school or hospital.

Psycho Milt said...

Bok: if you can find some example of me "justifying terrorism," feel free to point it out. It had better be a bloody good one too, given that you, KG and Adolf seem to have hard-ons for the mass murder of civilians yourselves.

While we're at it, perhaps one of you clever buggers who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and who quack on about "human shields" could explain to me how you'd go about defending a besieged and densely-populated city without doing it in close proximity to the residents?

Also while we're at it, one side may well be using civilians as human shields for all I know. However, the other side is unhesitatingly killing those human shields. Your claim that one of them is the moral superior of the other is based on what, exactly?

ISeeRed said...

Logic in Psycho Moral Equivalence Land: a bus is coming down the road, and a man suddenly pushes an old lady in front of it. Another sees this and is horrified, and fortunately pushes her out of the way just in time. But in Psycho-Land, they are BOTH WRONG, because they both used force! Both are guilty! In fact, the second guy is MORE guilty and deserves even greater punishment for grievous bodily harm, because the poor old dear fell and broke her hip when he shoved her out of death's way!

Psycho, try thinking about intentions and motives, values and aspirations of the two cultures clashing here. Try considering the centuries of bigotry against and oppression of the Jews in the Middle East and Europe that obviously *predates* the existence of Israel and the remarkable lack of Jewish/Israeli hatred of and bloodlust for killing "ragheads". Try adding up all the billions of dollars in UN and other forms of aid that could've gone into building a viable economy and civilised society, but instead has been diverted into armaments to kill them nigger-Jews.

Anyone who thinks this is merely a land dispute is woefully and almost willfully uninformed. And to be honest, anyone who consciously sides, every time, without fail, with Islamist jihadists, racial supremacists and genocidal maniacs who want to kill the nigger-Jews down to ever last man, woman and child, shall be ignored by me from now on. In fact, I might give up on No Minister altogether. It's no longer a welcoming place if other bloggers here are happy to rub virtual shoulders with an ignorant anti-Semitic apologist.

KG said...

"While we're at it, perhaps one of you clever buggers who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and who quack on about "human shields" could explain to me how you'd go about defending a besieged and densely-populated city without doing it in close proximity to the residents?"
A fine example of an otherwise intelligent person with a moral sense warped by ideology.
The Palestinians needn't be "beseiged and densely-populated".
Their own actions have led them to this point, these circumstances.
Which is why other Arab countries hate them and won't take them and are rapidly (except where it suits a wider agenda) cutting them loose.
Jordan massacred how many of them? At least in part because they refused to give up their murdering, shit-stirring ways. And as ISeeRed points out, these people prefer to spend the billions they've been given in aid on arms instead of building something worthwhile.
"Hamas is not a terrorist splinter group. It is the controlling authority in Gaza and determines what happens. Were it to curtail missile attacks and come to terms with the existence of a Jewish state, a cease-fire would instantaneously come into effect. Until then, it is responsible for every single Palestinian casualty."
Isi Leibler 'Candidly Speaking: End the cant and hypocrisy'
Sometimes, Milt the underdog is the underdog because the underog is an asshole.
It can be that simple.

James said...

Bok: if you can find some example of me "justifying terrorism," feel free to point it out."

I can point out examples of you justifing State theft and bulling of innocent people to do what you think is right and proper by your Socialist credo ( see earlier post by Milty on the marvels of "public" libraries)...terrorism naturally follows if you carry on down that philosopical path Comrade force monger...

Anonymous said...

Okay Milt i'll play your game. Just one para after you call on me to show where you justify their actions, you provide us with this little ripper :""human shields" could explain to me how you'd go about defending a besieged and densely-populated city without doing it in close proximity to the residents?

Or I'll translate:" Ofcourse they have a bloody right to use the school as a launching pad for their attacks, they are defending a city besieged by the evil forces of Zion."

Yep last time I looked, that smelled quacked, and shat like justification, so I make the call, it's you justifying their actions.

Good enough for you or are we now going to get some excuse to eplain that away?


Psycho Milt said...

James: the grown-ups are talking.

KG: the fact that you personally hate Arabs is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about who's doing a better job of killing the other side's civilians.

Bok: I meant justification of terrorism, not justification of the entirely legitimate business of defending your city from military attack. That doesn't need me to justify it, it's justified by international law.

ISeeRed: we aren't talking about public transport, we're talking about the soldiers of a Western democracy firing large amounts of high-explosive ordinance into a densely-populated city. As with KG, your view of the relative merits of the cultures involved is irrelevant - cultural superiority does not excuse murder.

Anonymous said...

Yep, thought so. An "explanation"

Here is the bottom line, Hamas are terrorists. You support them. Live with it. It is what it means to be a lefty. Blood on the hands and the stench of corruption.


KG said...

"..cultural superiority does not excuse murder."
It isn't murder.
Unless, of course you're a spineless half-person who won't ever do what's necessary to protect your own society from genocidal lunatics.
And for your info Milt, I don't at all "hate Arabs." I've met plenty I liked very much, come into contact with them at work and get along with them just fine.
But then, they're not behaving like the lowlifes who launch ordnance from schools and hospitals...
When will fucking idiot leftists get it through their skulls that loathing certain behaviours is not racism--the vast majority of us don't give a shit what colour/culture the perp is--it's the behaviour we object to.
Else why would we have Chinese/Fijiian/Aboriginal/Greek/American/Aussie/English/Kiwi friends? Seems to me there's not much cultural arrogance or racism operating there.

Anonymous said...

Why is it also that lefties, who murder, steal, mistreat women and gays, grow rich on the backs of the poor (read Helen and Micheal) have the absolute gall and arrogance that you also (Note I said also) display Milt. Just why is KG 's opinion any less valid than yours. Or why the snide put down of James who gave an example to what he felt was a position you took. No you had to go the lefty bovverboy way and try a put down.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

What would JESUS do? :-D

Anonymous said...

What would JESUS do? :

Kill them all. Every man woman and child in Gaza.
Ever terrorist, every sympathizer, every supporter, everywhere.

10And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

12Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Psycho Milt said...

Er, yeah, that Jesus, he was a known homicidal maniac...

Bok: gosh, there's nothing like a firmly-voiced assertion to put opposing arguments to flight, eh? Here's a different bottom line; the only ones on this thread keen on the killing of civilians remain you, KG, ISeeRed and Adolf (well, and Anonymous Fascist, but he's a fascist so it's kind of a given in his case).

KG wrote:

It isn't murder.

No doubt Hamas tell themselves the same lie.

KG said...

"No doubt Hamas tell themselves the same lie"
You arrogant prat--to equate self-defence and the loathing of targeting women and children with the actions of your friends in Hamas (and they must be your friends, since you indulge in such absurd mental contortions to justify what they're doing) shows your true colours, Milt.
A disgusting leftist terrorist sympathiser. I can't think of many forms of life lower.
I look forward to your justification for worshipping a paedophile prophet next.

Ed Snack said...

PM, I must say I don't understand your support for war crimes, not at all. It is unequivocally a war crime to use civilians as cover for belligerent acts, it is not a war crime to respond to such provocations. It is also unequivocally a war crime to fire indiscriminately at civilians without even the pretext of "collateral damage" from aiming at other belligerents.

In Gaza, it is perfectly possible to at least attempt to fight back by avoiding obviously intended secure refugee sites like the UN schools, by firing from the precincts of the school, that is a deliberate act to get a reaction in order to attempt to injure civilians. That is a war crime, and you are implicitly supporting Hamas' right to commit war crimes, that's pretty low.

You could also consider that this is exactly Hamas' intention. They can't win a military war, they can't even realistically hope to kill or injure enough IDF soldiers to make it look like they are trying, but they can try to win the propaganda war. So they put their own civilian population into the firing line so the "gullible" western media will lap it up and put pressure onto the US and others to try to get Israel to back off. Sound a bit like a conspiracy ? Well, have the Palestinian's deliberately falsified stories before, check, yes, frequently. Do they have non-build up areas to fire from, check, yes, do the western mnedia uncritically print almost anything they are given provided , check, yes. Looks like a duck, has feathers, quacks...

Look, nobody really ever wins any war, but this one is particularly bad because of the tactics quite deliberately employed by Hamas in this case,l but by the Palestinians in general, Hezbollah used almost identical tactics in Lebanon. The tactic is to provoke Israel into striking out, then to deliberately use their civilian population as shields to make sure that as many are killed or injured as possible in order to make a bigger splash in a western media that thinks anti-semitism is a reasonable point of view. This only works because there are enough "useful idiot" types in the west, prepared to blind themselves to the bleeding obvious in order to be able to reasonably present their anti-semitism as "anti-zionism". Look at the calls now from Hamas and related typesw, kill Jews anywhere in the worlkd. That says it all, it isn't Israel so much as that the country is full of JEWS !

A plague on both their houses, certainly, but I know which one I think is acting, within the exingencies of a war situation, proportionately and within at least some rules, and it ain't Hamas.

Anonymous said...

So Hezbollah has joined in firing rockets into north Israel from the Lebanon.

So that leaves Israel two choices:
* try for round II against Hezbollah. Let's lose lots more soldiers.
* adopt strategic bombing measures against both Gaza and Lebanon.

(or, I guess, surrender)

ISeeRed said...

Well, Anonymous, if that's true, then according to the PsychosTM of the world, these courageous and selfless freedom fighters are only responding to Israeli oppression and occupation. It must therefore be the brutal invasion and current occupation of southern Lebanon by the IDF that has triggered this. And, as Hezbollah is funded and armed by Iran, we must also have missed the Israeli blitzkrieg on Tehran and be ignoring the Persian Holocaust that is now underway.

Psycho Milt said...

No doubt ISeeRed cheered on the brave Red Army lads fighting terrorism in Afghanistan as well.

Ed: what's difficult to understand? Both sides are criminals, and yet there's unqualified support for one group of criminals being displayed at No Minister. I write to ocunter that.

ISeeRed said...

An embedded "cunt" there, Psycho? Is that a self-reference. ;-)

Psycho Milt said...

Forgot earlier:

Ed, if you want to write about Hamas adopting a tactic of using human shields and filming the resulting civilian deaths for propaganda purposes (and I don't doubt that is a tactic they're using very successfully), you have two issues to address:

1. How they could defend Gaza from military attack without risking civilian casualties, given that the city is under siege and there's nowhere for refugees to go.

2. The fact that this tactic only has a chance of success if the opposing side is happy to kill large numbers of civilians.

KG said...

There ya go, Milt--I just put up a video clip of Hamas using a young boy as a human shield over at Crusader Rabbit, just for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you explained to the boy the operational, historical and cultural necessity for that.

Psycho Milt said...

1. Why do you assume I endorse crimes against civilians the way you do?

2. Your vid appears show one armed man pushing a boy away from him, and then another armed man running across an open space to grab a kid and drag him over to where other people are standing by a wall. The first bit is too short to see what's actually going on, but the second one looks to me a lot like someone risking his neck to get a kid from out in the open to under cover. If I find some footage of IDF soldiers trying to get civilians out of the line of fire, should I post it for you as "IDF using human shields?"

Ed Snack said...

Milt, I would assume that you support crimes against civilians because of comments like :

"How much have you paid them for their excellent work killing refugees hiding in UN schools, Fairfacts?"

Where are the Israeli's committing war crimes Milt ? It is not a war crime to kill civilians when responding to fire from what we could term an "illegal place", ie a place where civilians are sheltering to escape the violence. The use of civilian shields is the crime, not the response. Belligerents are entitled to respond. Also, I assert that this is a deliberate tactic by Hamas just as it was by Hezbollah. And you (and most of the media) swallow this hook, line, and sinker.

Defending Gaza. First, don't pick fights with people who can readily crush you, should they choose, under the normal rules of war. Second, if you must, then fight in Gaza amongst the houses as you like; But: make some attempt to move non-combatants out, designate "safe areas" that you won't fight from (the UN schools maybe, but in that case you should also avoid storing arms there), and, above all, don't deliberately fire from refuge areas to elicit a response that you can mostly successfully progandize amongst a compliant media.

It is possible Milt, but you do have to try. Hamas though uses the opposite tactic, and uses civilians as deliberate sacrificial pawns. Why have (allegedly, and as this is a Hamas figure it is almost certainly a complete distortion) almost half the "civilian" casualties been Children ? Answer(s): because most of the civilians are children, and those are the ones Hamas puts in the firing line, better propaganda value you see.

So the challenge is to point out where the Israeli's are committing "war crimes", using an acceptable definition though, not just a "any IDF soldier shooting anywhere and Hamas claim children killed" type of definition you seem to favour. This is a war situation, the firing of unaimed missiles into Israel is a war crime and a war act, Israel is legally entitled to respond. There is no "proportionality" requirement in war, and no crime in responding to fire. A crime would be indiscriminate fire into civilians, and there is, imho, no reasonable effort of this. Collateral damage, as it is called, sure, but this is legal, as regretable as any casualties are.

I would also make the point, if we wish to extend absolute previlege to civilians in these situations so that any deaths are "war crimes", then terrorists groups like Hamas must win. They are unafraid, or perhaps unheedful, of any sanctions you can take against them, and have no hesitation using your weaknesses against whoever they like.

PhilBest said...

"Roots of the Gaza Conflict" By Nonie Darwish (a moderate Muslim)

Hint: as Fairfacts Media says, it is all about Sharia Law.......

PhilBest said...

Humanitarian Israel
By David Solway | Thursday, January 08, 2009

"As we observe a mounting and increasingly pervasive campaign to censure Israel for defending itself against the Hamas thugocracy, we are also witnessing a likely self-induced blindness among both elite institutions and ordinary people. The UN, the media, the NGOs and proliferating altruistic organizations, the European governments (with the exception of Germany), the intellectual panjandrums and a vast popular constituency appear utterly incapable of recognizing the obvious. Israel is in fact under no obligation to lend its support to its self-avowed enemy. It is under no imperative to provide Gaza—whose population elected Hamas by a wide margin and supports terror attacks against Israel by an even wider margin—with medical treatment, diesel fuel, electrical power and food shipments. The Geneva Conventions which assign responsibility to the occupying power for the welfare of the occupied people do not apply in this situation since Gaza can no longer credibly be described as “occupied.”

So the question needs to be asked. What other nation in the world heals and victuals its enemies, while at the same time allowing its own population centers to undergo relentless bombardment? What nation in its right collective mind would go on supplying sustenance to and serving its attackers’ energy needs? Russia, for example, is not under attack, yet even in a non-conflictual situation it has no compunction in cutting off Gas supplies to the Ukraine and threatening to do the same to Europe—in the middle of the winter no less—yet the General Assembly sits on its hands, Amnesty International is deafeningly mute, the streets are empty of protesters. Innocent people can freeze to death for all they care.

But Israel is routinely denounced for supposedly depriving its mortal enemies of food and material. Gaza, let us recall, is a hostile “state” which persists in trying to abduct Israeli soldiers, laying explosive devices at the border, sniping at Israel’s labor force and firing rockets daily at its civilian communities. But what is even more preposterous than such false and hypocritical defamation is the fact that Israel, apparently bowing to pressure or subject to some misguided sense of noblesse oblige, continues to act as Gaza's fuel pump and breadbasket.

Whatever way we look at it, the situation is so absurd and self-defeating as to defy belief. The many “well-intentioned” peace outfits and most of the world’s governments have not seen fit to acknowledge the plain reality of the overall situation. To repeat: Israel is under no obligation whatsoever to cater to or initiate relations with another state or people. Such is the rule the Muslim nations have adopted wholesale vis à vis Israel . It is the assumption behind the anti-Zionist divestment campaigns of the Churches, NGOs, universities and trade unions, and, indeed, it is an axiom the “world community” has sanctioned for its own members, with the hypocritical exclusion of the Jewish state. This is a basic principle of the jus gentium: there is no legitimate compulsion for a competent authority to “do business” with or provide succour to those it does not wish to.

And thus there is no ethical, legal or political justification for imposing this responsibility upon Israel, especially as Israel has been under attack for years from the very entity it is expected to sustain and subsidize. Nevertheless, from the unreflected perspective of the rest of the world, Israel, which owes nothing to Gaza, must go on furnishing its adversaries with their stipulated requirements. Simply put, Israel is the victim of what we might call negative exceptionalism. Unlike any other country on the planet it must work against its own interests. It is as if there exists among its many enemies a shadowy, perhaps unconscious, realization that only one country in the Middle East is capable of defeating Israel, and that is Israel itself. And therefore, in the current conflict, it must be bullied and constrained to furnish Hamas with the ammunition, so to speak, that can be used against it.

That, I believe, is for much of the world what Gaza is all about. Against all common sense and natural law, Israel must be forced via moral condemnation and political pressure to feed, equip, endow and replenish Hamas and its Gazan electors until the Jewish state finally succumbs to a process of physical and military erosion, and becomes something other than a Jewish state. The world demands that Israel defeat itself in the absence of any stronger opponent in the region to complete the task. And Israel, at least up to now and despite its belated military response to continued Hamas aggression, seems perfectly willing to comply."

Psycho Milt said...

Ed: perhaps you failed to pick up the sarcasm in my comment you quoted. At the least, you should be able to figure out from previous comments that I don't really find it "excellent" that the IDF is firing at UN schools they know to be full of refugees.

As I said, both sides are criminal in this. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to armed opposition of the occupation and colonisation of their country, but suicide bombings and indiscriminate use of rockets are crimes.

Likewise, the Israeli govt has a right to defend itself against those crimes, but they have their own list: it's a crime to occupy another country and settle your own people on it; it's a crime to impose collective punishment on people in that country for the attacks of the consequent resistance movements; and it's a crime to launch large-scale military attacks in populated areas with no regard for the consequences.

You seem to be basing your assessment on the principle of this being two neighbouring countries, with one minding its own business and being attacked by the other. However, there aren't two countries: there's one country, and some occupied territories. The people in those occupied territories may not be legitimately entitled to attack Israeli civilians, but they have an absolutely legitimate entitlement to attack the IDF. The Israeli govt is going to have to address that issue before they get to play the victim in this.

So much for war crimes. On to "human shields:"

I don't doubt Hamas are using the tactic of getting Israel to maximise civilian casualties for propaganda effect. It's a very effective tactic and has been put to good use by many insurgents, including the French resistance in WW2. As always, it's a tactic that is only effective if the opposing side is happy to kill large numbers of civilians. In other words: as above, we're actually talking about two sets of criminals here.

I should also note that the fact the IDF says they were fired on from a safe refuge doesn't necessarily mean they were. Their history suggests cover-up is always the first option and investigate/prosecute the last.

And re "collateral damage," it depends on your definition of "indiscriminate." Like the Americans, the Israelis are fond of showing video footage of their smart bombs in action. But that's a tiny proportion of the high explosive in use. A more typical example was the footage on the news the other night of a battery of 155mm self-propelled howitzers sending salvos of dumb ol' artillery shells into Gaza - you won't find the IDF giving you cool video footage of where those hit or what happened when they did.