Posted by: graemebird | June 1, 2010

Graeme Birds Updated, Non-Negotiable, Election Demands

More later. For the moment I’ll bring to the front my last series of non-negotiable demands to show that my demands were 1. reasonable in the first place, 2. Have not changed in the spirit of things, and therefore 3. Should have been submitted to already, so hurry, the fuck, up about it.



  1. “Digger, there is a difference between saving jobs and ending a rescession. I think that the stimulus would have increased employment relative to no stimulus”



    Not smart.

  2. From elsewhere:

    Graeme Bird :
    03 Jun 2010 12:38:18pm
    Its time for a little Middle-East-Terrorism 101.

    We are lead to believe that this is essentially a conflict between Israel, and the several million descendants of about 600,000 Palestinians, that were dispossessed when the State of Israel was formed. This is not the essential conflict. Rather the central conflict is between the greater middle-east, and Israel. Because:

    1. the most influential instigators of violence against Israel, are highly placed individuals, in government or with oil-wealth, in the surrounding countries of the Middle East ……….

    2. Because these individuals act against Israel and yet find themselves in awesome and serene safety, then this conflict cannot be resolved. Only by projecting violence and shame against the highest placed decision-makers could peace ever come about.

    Now there has been a lot of talk about the state of Israel operating ruthlessly outside the law. This is the opposite of the truth. These people tend to be legalistic sticklers. These are the semites of the written word. The semites of the many books in conflict with the semites of the one book. Since Judaism, is fundamentally the intellectual descendant of the Pharisees.

    Because of these tendencies, and because of the hatred and bigotry the rest of the world heaps on Israel, she finds it hard to solve her problems. Solving her problems would involve direct retaliation against the leadership in countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

    A third reason is that, without the full moral support of the rest of the world she probably is physically unable to safely retaliate against all these criminals. Whereas 30 years ago her soldiers were just utterly extraordinary and could seemingly pistol-whip the entire middle east.

    If we act as friends to these people, then maybe we can persuade her to leap-frog the Palestinian people when it comes to her retaliations and go straight after Palestinian leadership, Syrian leadership and so forth. Otherwise the situation can never be resolved.

    Israel is caught in a kind of legal-public-opinion pincer movement which has her retaliating against pawns. Nothing can be completed by doing this. The best that can happen is that she is reducing the danger to her citizens in a short-term way.

    Reply Alert moderator

    Graeme Bird :
    03 Jun 2010 12:21:12pm
    It doesn’t appear to me that Israel is restricting food-by-volume. They seem rather to have a few petty restrictions vis a vis certain items of food.

    Lets tone down the rhetoric a bit. This is no illegal blockade. Thats just people being silly, trying to grab some limelight or something.

    There needs to be a great deal more investment in less-lethal weaponry, to be able to handle this sort of situation with a lot less killing.

    Reply Alert moderator

  3. Graeme Bird :
    03 Jun 2010 12:17:12pm
    Bob it didn’t quite happen that way. Soldiers were confronted with armed retaliation and they did what soldiers do in those circumstances. We ought to be asking who set them up in this way? Who paid the bills to have this confrontation go ahead?

    I advocate lots of firepower, with less-lethal weapons, for situations of this type. Well-trained commandos, acting with overwhelming force but with less-lethal weapons at their disposal could have probably dealt with the situation with a lot less death and suffering.

    But its not as if Netanyahu set it up to get people killed over wheelchairs.

    A blockade is an act of war. But they are not restricting food by volume. Some of the blocked goods do seem rather petty. But not on some sort of war-crimes level. This is the terror masters manipulating us, by trying to get third parties killed. We ought not fall for their vicious conniving.

    Reply Alert moderator

  4. Why is their a blockade of Gaza at all, Graeme? Why is food restricted and materials essential for rebuilding the houses the Israeli soldiers destroyed in its last horrendous attack? Houses that people were living in. These people are among the most impoverished people in the world. What sane gov’t would seek to impoverish them even further, including children and mothers?

  5. Because Syria, the Sauds and Iran use these people as pawns in a proxy-war against Israel.

    Unfortunately Israel doesn’t seem to have the support to go after their more substantial enemies.

    Lets see what the Israelis say about it:

  6. Note that here Netanyahu is in no doubt who his real enemy is. Its the Iranians, setting up another forward-position. In a better world he’d simply go after the Iranian leadership, leapfrogging all the poor bastards that are put there between him and the Mullahs. In a better world he’d be able to personally beat up these clerics with his bare hands, and this would largely solve the problem.

    But circumstances put a whole series of potential victims, most of them wholly innocent or only somewhat culpable, between him and these clerics.

    This is how the governments have sorted things. They all want to be like the Kind in chess. Immune from being knocked off. Once we abandon the mystique of government, and we see to it that it is the leadership that faces the prospect of being torn in half by lead and laser, then there will be more motivation for, and more prospect of, peace.

  7. I just modified my reply to you for the benefit of ABC readers. Don’t know if it will get through:

    Notice in the latest video of Mr Netanyahu:

    He is in no doubt who his real enemy is. Its the Iranians, setting up another forward-position. In a better world he’d simply go after the Iranian leadership, leapfrogging all the poor bastards that are put there between him and the Mullahs. In a better world he’d be able to personally beat up these clerics with his bare hands, and this would largely solve the problem.

    But circumstances and decades of dysfunctional lawmaking, put a whole series of potential victims, most of them wholly innocent or only somewhat culpable, between him and these clerics.

    This is how the governments have sorted things. They all want to be like the King in chess. The governments make the rules so that they are seldom in physical danger. They like to be immune from being knocked over from the blowback they create.

    Once we abandon the mystique of government, and we see to it that it is THE LEADERSHIP that faces the prospect of being torn in half by lead and laser, then there will be more motivation for, and more prospect of, peace.

    Think of situations wherein peace has been largely brought about by a single battle. I’m thinking of the battle of Hastings. Come the morning pretty much the entirety of the male nobility of England were dead and very few others. Another example might be the revenge of Lorenzo Medici. So fast, comprehensive and almost free of innocent death.

    Thats how problems get solved and peace is secured. And such solutions have been made almost impossible in the modern world, under international law.

  8. I think you’re right, Mr B.

    Those crafty Jew Bastards!!!!!

  9. Not crafty enough sadly. Well except the Jew Bankers. But the rest of them aren’t crafty enough for my liking.

    Here is a post I’m trying to get through at Unleashed. But the moderators act like they are subcontracting for the JIhad:

    “This is the 21st century. Israel is a member of the UN and therefore has to resolve it’s problems through international acceptable methods and consensus… Just like every other country in the world. ”

    Will you stop being a baby? Will you stop being an irrational squalling infant? I don’t think that is too much to ask.

    You are right here publicly, under the cover of anonymity, asking for the Israelis to let their women and children be slaughtered.

    Right here publicly, because of your pathetic spoilt brat tendencies, you are demanding a second holocaust of the Jewish people.

    Can you just bloody-well attempt to be a sane adult.

    If thats not too much to ask.

    I don’t think thats too much to ask.

    Now if you are a teenager. Supposing you are still at school. You might want to think about asking some sensible questions.

    I find your suggestion just absolutely disgusting. Do you know that the holocaust happened only about 70 years ago?

    You do know that don’t you? You do understand that right?

    Isn’t it a little bit early for you to be demanding a second holocaust. Because thats what you are doing.

    Start asking sensible questions. Because its pretty clear that you are an ignorant young fool.

  10. Invoking the Holocaust is a complete and utter furphy Graeme and a large number of Holocaust survivors and their offspring are implacably imposed to Israel’s ongoing stance and actions towards the Palestinians as are anti-fascists and democratic, religious and secular humanitarian people everywhere.

    As many of the Holocaust associated Jews say and the roll-call is endless so it would be pointless to try and name them all, from the famous to my next door neighbour, the sad and horrifying truth is Israel today is being led by people who have donned the fascist gown themselves and are little better than the Nazis were towards Jews in the way they are treating Palestinians in the occupied and blockaded territories.

    Israel has a sizable internal opposition too, however all signs are that its government will pursue a course which is in the long run suicidal and unsustainable given what it has arrayed against it: the growing animosity and vengeance of the peoples of the region against its bellicosity and intransigence, its refusal to negotiate in good faith, its assured backing by the US and what that will inevitably endlessly unleash against it.

  11. “Invoking the Holocaust is a complete and utter furphy Graeme and a large number of Holocaust survivors and their offspring are implacably imposed to Israel’s ongoing stance and actions towards the Palestinians as are anti-fascists and democratic, religious and secular humanitarian people everywhere.”

    In the general, invoking the holocaust might not be valid. But this fellow, by his back-seat-driving, was making suggestions that would ensure a new holocaust.

    Governments always do rotten things. But this government in this case is not doing a rotten thing by having a blockade. Matter of fact, in comparison to other attempts to deal with the situation, they are saving lives on both sides of the conflict.

    We have always and everywhere a failure to look at three or more alternatives. We can never say….

    They should blockade, versus they ought not blockade.

    The question is: What is the best action to take given the circumstances.

    An attempt to figure out six comprehensive strategies would have the blockade in the top three.

    Netanyahu has been successful after all. There hasn’t been the sort of killing of Jews that we have seen there at other times. And likely not the same toll on Palestinian lives as other strategies might have caused.

  12. “Israel has a sizable internal opposition too, however all signs are that its government will pursue a course which is in the long run suicidal ….

    See this is just it. You are only thinking of what Israel is doing. You are not trying to figure out three or more strategies that Israel might be following.

    Or else you would think to yourself: HOW COULD ISRAEL ACT IN A WAY THAT WAS NOT SUICIDAL?

    When everyone around you wants you exterminated, the list of non-suicidal alternative courses of action may be rather short.

  13. From ‘A Juridical Analysis of the Flotilla Incident’ by David Picón Álvarez

    4.4 Conclusion on the legality of the blockade

    The blockade of the Gaza Strip is not a naval blockade in accordance to the law of armed conflict at sea, because there is no armed conflict at sea. It is not a pacific blockade, because it is not authorised by the UNSC. It must be therefore either be illegal, or grounded on the right to self-defence of Art 51 UNC. Inasmuch as a claim is made on the latter basis, this claim is barred or at least strongly impeded by UNSC Resolution 242, ¶ 2(a), but in any event, should it be legal, such a blockade must comply with the relevant IHL, including the special IHL on blockades as well as the general IHL regarding armed conflict, and with the relevant norms of international law which affect the rights of neutral parties to freely navigate. That requires the blockade to obey Art 59 GCIV, as well as the principles of distinction and proportionality. The rights of third parties may not be overridden to a greater extent, and must be overridden to a lesser extent, than it would be the case under a pacific blockade. Therefore, the blockade, in the terms in which it was claimed and in which it effectively operated, is illegal.

    5 Interception and subsequent attack of the flotilla

    Having dealt with the legal status of the blockade, the matter regarding the interception and subsequent attack of the flotilla results from the simple application of universally recognised principles.

    Since the blockade claimed by the Israeli forces was illegal, and they had no other grounds on which to exercise a right to visit under Art 110 UNCLOS, it follows that the interception and subsequent attacks were contrary to law. From this finding, it is obvious that the passengers of the flotilla held, correspondingly, a right to self-defence, in which proportionate force should have been (and probably was) used.

    One nonsensical claim must be dealt with at this point. It has been said that Israeli forces engaged in an act of piracy. This characterisation gravely misrepresents the law. Piracy is well defined in Art 101–2 UNCLOS, and can only be committed for private gain by private ships, or by government ships which have mutinied. If anything, it is clear Israel does not repudiate the acts of its armed forces, but on the contrary stands by then as acts of state, fully juri imperii. Thus, whatever legal qualification one finds appropriate to describe these acts, piracy is entirely out of place.

    6 Conclusion

    Israel has international liability on the basis of the articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, for breaching, inter alia, its international obligation not to interfere with the freedom of navigation of other states in international waters, for instituting an illegal blockade, for intercepting and attacking foreign shipping without regard to applicable principles of IHL, inter alia, distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, for illegally capturing foreign shipping, and for illegally holding goods not subject to capture under relevant IHL.

  14. I think Israel probably is unviable in the long run as a successful nation state as long as it denies Palestinians a genuine independent homeland and as long as it acts as US military and political proxy in the region vis-a-vis Iran and the Arab states.

    The bottom line is that Israel’s current course whether you support it or not is suicidal and unsustainable unless it wants to live in a situation of eternal war and siege and growing international condemnation and isolation. At some point surely the American public are going to say enough is enough in the massive financial handouts to Israel when their own economy is in such dire straits.

    Israel today refuses to negotiate in good faith with Hamas in Gaza demanding before hand things that must be negotiated. This inflexible and frankly strategically stupid because counter-productive stance leaves it with no other option but to continue on its current course of aggression, confrontation, illegal occupation and blockading and now illegally attacking international ships of international citizens in international waters.

  15. Heh, can I pay you a compliment in passing?

  16. Sure. But notice this:

    “I think Israel probably is unviable in the long run as a successful nation state as long as it denies Palestinians a genuine independent homeland…”

    The above isn’t really a second tactical alternative to what they are doing now with the blockade and the rest of what they do for security reasons.

  17. Well those Palestinian people aren’t going anywhere else. They’ve been there forever unlike most Israelis who’ve come increasingly in recent years from the former Soviet Union and the US.

    The very notion of a separate Jewish state has been a controversial one amongst Jews and in many ways it makes little to no sense today. The fact is that most Jews live outside Israel and have peacefully assimilated within their countries of birth. But so long as this project continues of building a Jewish state in a Muslim and Arab world then it behooves Israel to try and co-exist peacefully with its numerically larger neighbours and not seek to pulverise them into submission and destitution because this serves the broader interests of an oil-hungry US which has armed Israel to the teeth such that it is more powerfully militarily than all the countries of the ME combined.

    Israel is not the helpless victim here.

  18. Sounds right mostly. But still doesn’t tell us how to make Israel secure from Muslim Nazis.

    • Leaving aside the historical fact that Jews and Muslims did live for centuries peaceably together in the Middle East well before the establishment of Israel by European Jews in the C20, I actually think it is up to Israel itself today to come up with its own solution in conjunction with the Palestinian people in the region.

      I’m very wary of dictates from afar whether by foreign governments let alone individuals such as you or me as to what Israel should do OTHER than to refuse to be intimidated or swayed by Zionist blackmail and propaganda or to become an accomplice or defender of war crimes. To be silent is not helpful to those Israelis who are ashamed and reject the misdeeds of successive Israeli governments.

      Israel is not a weak defenceless state. It is the strongest state in the region. It possesses real, not imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. It has more tanks and bomber jets and pilots than the rest of the Arab states put together.

      To argue that any Arab country let alone the people of Gaza militarily threatens Israel is pure demagogy. It is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian homelands that creates the conditions which produce suicide bombers. As long as Palestine remains oppressed there will be no peace in the region. Rather Israel will face infinite war. I don’t what that. Who would?

      • Right. But this does not tell us what solution they ought to come up with. You see we need three or more solutions, to judge if any are better than the blockade. Below I will post an item I’m trying to get through to explain why I think, that on practical, moral, legal and philosophical grounds the blockade is a very good measure. Also there will be an explanation as to how it can be made to work, and how it can be made far less harsh.

  19. Re the compliment. I was just going to say again how much I admire the way you can write. So clear and flowing with a rich vocabulary and vernacular. You’ve got a real gift and it intrigues me how some people can write well so effortlessly and others struggle to be coherent, regardless in both cases of formal educational levels.

    There’s an Aboriginal woman I work with who grew up in western Sydney and had an average school education, had two children very young, now in her early 30s. She’s done a few semesters at uni in the arts and worked up until a few years ago as a receptionist in a public hospital. Within a few years in a different industry she’s gone from a low level admin job to that of a director. One of her many attributes, apart from a photographic memory and the ability to speed read, is a superlative writing style. She’s never been a great reader of literature AFAICS (unlike you) but she is a very effective written communicator (as well as verbal).

    • I was hoping that the compliment might be more in keeping with these lyrics.

  20. She sounds pretty gifted.

  21. I should like to challenge Ben Saul head on in this legal matter.

    Supposing a man comes to beat you and your children with sticks. Suppose you have pacifist leanings. Do you pick up a stick and try to beat him as well? Do you let him bludgeon you and your kids with sticks? A bit of a dilemma. This story also involves the man attempting to get you to hurt his own kids in your attempts to defend yourself.

    What can you do? You could try TAKING THE STICK AWAY.

    In context the blockade isn’t even aggressive in its intention. It is meant to ‘take the stick away’ so to speak.

    Authentic aid agencies haven’t got money to burn. If we are talking a REAL aid agency, it ought not seek to impose costs on itself, that gobble up the resources it has, that may be used to help those it is allegedly attempting to help.

    Logistics is the big cost involved here. The food often comes to the aid agency for free. There could scarcely be greater cost imposition then attempting to send aid all-at-once, rather than sequentially, through the most convenient port. Knowing that the Israelis must inspect all the aid provisions then, no authentically well-meaning aid agency will launch a flotilla of aid.

    The attempt to launch a flotilla is a premeditated attempt to impose costs on the process of distributing aid. When, on-the-cheap, the aid may be distributed sequentially through the Israeli port at no extra cost to the aid donors. So the flotilla was proof of evil intent. That the flotilla then attacked the Israeli soldiers gives us the known motivations for the flotilla.

    Now we go to this question of proportionality that Ben Saul is hanging his case on. “Proportional” is not a concept that hangs in the air on its own. We always ask “Proportional To What?”. Does Ben Saul believe that denying murderous fascist thugs access to weapons, to be disproportional ….. If so to what?

    To the minor inconvenience of the murder of Israeli children, covered as they are in green slime? To the demoralization of Israeli society making it unable to defend itself, from a psychological point of view?

    Now clearly if legitimate aid agencies want to send legitimate aid to the people that the Middle East is victimizing, and using as pawns, such aid agencies, would work with the Israelis, to keep the transport of that aid cheap. But also to keep the INSPECTION of that aid cheap.

    It is not a serious proposition that Mr Netanyahu cares deeply about whether the Palestinian kids get to eat choclate, ginger or other such relative delicacies. Co-operation with reasonable people ought to get reasonable results. If all these banned items can be presented in a way that make inspection easy, cheap, and quick, then negotiations with the Israeli leadership will see such goods passed on quickly and sent to those who really need to force great amounts of chocolate down their throats, being as they are starving. And we all know that starving people need particularly rich foods, of high caloric value.

    Ben Saul is proposing that the blockade is disproportionate. Disproportionate to what other blockade? Disproportionate to what other measures, that might rob psychopathic fascist murderers, with the avowed intention of destroying Israel, from getting their weapons, and/or from the intention of using those weapons?

    What other measures Ben? What other measures I sez? What is your alternative strategy that the blockade is disproportionate too?

    Murdering Hamas leadership, and those that get in the way, would probably be effective, yes its true. Is that the alternative that the blockade is disproportionate too?

    I don’t THINKso. So what is the other measures, that the legal mind of Saul is judging the blockade to be disproportionate too?

    I guess this is just one of those mysteries of life.

    Philosophically the Israelis seek only to “take the stick away.” Perhaps they are pussy-footing around? Perhaps they should seek rather to kill the man with the stick and wait till someone else picks the stick up and kill that man too.

    Legal judgements cannot be made in denial of the entire context of the matter, nor of the intention of the people involved.

  22. Every one has a right to arm or defend themselves against attack. Israel is disproportionately armed courtesy of American dollars against the entire rest of the Middle East. And it is the aggressor in the Middle East. No contest. It has been since its inception.

    The blockade of Gaza is illegal according to international law and it is immoral and an intolerable imposition on non-Israeli people that Israel has previously invaded and killed in large numbers.

    There is a clear course of action. The blockade must be lifted now.

  23. Right. So what will be achieved by the lifting of the blockade? Will the Israelis cease to defend themselves? Should they? What do you expect would be the practical effect of these alternative actions taken in their defense.

    The same strange reaction came to the building of the fence. The fence and the blockade are measures designed to save lives on both sides of the conflict. They are intensely moral undertakings.

  24. What would be achieved would be an immediate material improvement in the lives and conditions of the pop’n of Gaza. Second it would create the essential pre-requisite for conditions of if not good will at least a lessening of the reciprocal tension and hostility that creates bad feeling and leads to aggressive behaviour from both sides.

    All successful negotiations between hostile groups necessitate a commitment from both sides to immediately cease war-like action as the absolutely essential precondition to the two parties even sitting down at the negotiating table in the first place. This has been borne out again and again throughout history and its the basic template for mediation, conciliation, dispute resolution used around the world with respect to either small fragmented communities or nation states.

    I believe this could work or should at least be attempted here.

  25. There would be no improvement in their lifestyles, except to the extent that the cement may help get things built and repaired. Israel isn’t blocking food nor many goods. They are not attempting to block anything much at all but weapons. So the lifting of the blockade can hardly create an economic miracle.

    But once again. How do you think Hamas, will act to getting weapons all over again, will Israel then cease to defend itself, what will be the likely consequences of Israel defending itself by alternative means to the blockade?

    Clearly the blockade is not merely legal, its moral. Its a highly ethical undertaking, just like the fence was.

  26. I can’t think of any blockade of a rich powerful state against a vastly less wealthy, less powerful neighbouring state can be “an highly ethical undertaking” or a defensible or sensible or sustainable one if the neighbouring state has powerful allies or potential allies in the environs and internationally as the Palestinian people most surely do.

    Can you point to another comparable example in history where such a blockade against a less powerful, far poorer, comparatively less destructive regime or group can be judged by any useful criteria to have been a good thing for either itself or its adversary?

    Secondly your questions are fallacious because they assume that in all circumstances these two parties will be at loggerheads and need therefore to defend themselves from each either with armaments, albeit grossly unequal ones. That is not only a pessimistic take but one that will end badly for both parties and take an enormous toll for potentially generations to come.

    The whole point of lifting the blockade by Israel as I’ve said is that it would be an essential first step and peace offering without which there can be no possibility of the two still unequally backed parties sitting down together and negotiating an outcome, compromise most probably that can be an improvement on the status quo for both.

    • The reason that it is ethical, is because it reduces harm on both sides of the border. This ought not be seen as an abstract matter. Hamas wants the Israeli people slaughtered. This is their stated goal and is what they try and do any chance they get. They themselves are proxies of other evil regimes.

      The idea is not to extrapolate to blockades as an abstract matter. But to see the intent of what they are attempting to achieve. I just noticed that I got this post through:

      Graeme Bird :
      04 Jun 2010 3:57:36pm
      The building of the fence, and the blockade are intensely moral undertakings. They seek to, and are successful at, reducing the harm to parties on either side of the conflict. The hysteria, and attempts at disruption, towards these two projects were launched for the same reason; specifically because they are good, well-intentioned, and effective measures.

      The idea is for Israel to hold fast on the blockade permanently, and to find ways to stop the premeditated and evil attempts to undermine these two measures. If they outlive such wickedness, then the blockade can be made essentially costless to the Palestinian people. Since it is merely a matter of exporters getting used to presenting their goods in a way that makes inspection cheap and fast.

      Reply Alert moderator

  27. “Hamas wants the Israeli people slaughtered. This is their stated goal and is what they try and do any chance they get. They themselves are proxies of other evil regimes.”

    No that is rubbish. You’d never get a job as a mediator or go-between, Graeme, unless you start thinking of different possibilities or laterally.

    In fact your sort of thinking is downright dangerously inflammatory in such situations or comparable ones – such as a divorce or marriage breakup – and should be marginalised or ignored or subverted by all parties that want a livable rational outcome.

  28. No no. Its a fact, that Hamas want the destruction of Israel. Which means Israelis slaughtered. This is in fact their goal. There is no use trying to see yourself in these animals. This is what they are after. This is how they behave. They are a terrorist outfit, started largely by Syria. Currently supported mostly be Iran.

    There is also no use mediating between the two parties. Since one party wants the destruction of Israel, there is nothing to talk about.

    These are just facts Philomena. You don’t look at a terrorist outfit and pretend they are akin to people at the local womens organic food co-op.

    Its an absolute moral imperative that they be deprived of weapons.

  29. “You don’t look at a terrorist outfit and pretend they are akin to people at the local womens organic food co-op.

    Jeezus. You don’t think you’re being a wee bit sexist here doofus?

  30. Look, the scenario I outlined, Mr Bird, has been used to positive successful effect e.g. in Belfast, to mediate between Protestant and Catholic communities re practices and traditions that one side experienced as virtually life-threatening if not intolerably provocative and which the other side insisted on their right to exercise.

    The cessation of the annual Protestant parade through Catholic quarters, as it was, for the duration of negotiations, allowed the parties to discuss an agreed compromise which brought a halt to annual bloodletting and riots by enraged Catholics against robotic Protestants.

  31. This is not like some sort of dispute between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast. For one thing the main problem wasn’t that the IRA was Catholic. That was a relatively minor disagreement to do with national boundaries. This is very different. The jihadis want the Jews dead. There is no prospect for an agreement between Jews and people who want them dead.

    What can there possibly be to talk about? You cannot take a make-believe attitude to two parties in a dispute. They are what they are. One side are Jews. The other side want Jews dead. Where is the agreement to be had here?

    Its true that Hamas and the left have much that they agree about. But Hamas are not like normal leftists. When you see Socialist kids and Hamas types joining in coalition the first thing to think is “what the hell do these kids think will happen to them if the Jihadis were to win.”

    The Jihadi movement has to goal of seeking Sharia law globally. Now if you don’t like that idea, there is nothing to negotiate about. They are very firm on their goals. Whereas there can be some chance of mediation between normal Muslims there can be no hope of negotiation with an outfit like Hamas.

  32. Everyone has ambit claims Birdy. Rightists, leftists, jihadists, priests, feminists, socialists, employers, unionists, citizens, government.

    No one gets exactly what they think they want or have written down in some sort of half-assed, bravado manifesto or log of claims. It’s a dance. You’ve got to treat it as a dance. Sometimes it means one step forward two back, sometimes the reverse. But you got to be prepared to step into the round. and put your arms around the other.

    • Thats what its all about hey? There will be none of that Celtic dancing, when the Jihad takes over.

  33. Its not an ambit claim. Its a fixed goal. Every regime has causes which justify their existence. The end of the Jews is the cause of Hamas. Further, the mere killing of Hamas leadership will moderate their behaviour for awhile. But since they are being directed and paid-for by Mullahs, and others, living in blissful security, even killing them can only have medium-term beneficial effects.

    Hence its totally imperative they be denied weapons at all times, and killed whenever retaliation is called for.


  35. Your only solution is murder. Fuck that for a joke. It is no solution. It is the Nazi solution.

  36. Well what is the only other thing you can do aside from murder the leadership?

    Deny them the use of weapons. I don’t think you’ve done the hard yards to learn who you are dealing with here. This is not Ian Paisley. People always pretended that Paisley was some sort of extremist. I don’t see that. You can negotiate with Paisley. You cannot negotiate with Hamas for the two key reasons I’ve said.

    1. They want Jews dead.
    2. They are controlled by more important decision-makers who live in blissful security.

  37. You can see why the blockade is the ethical solution. Since Hamas having weapons means killing. Therefore if you want to avoid killing you deny them weapons.

    • (site deity sez) But the blockade, once it is full developed, won’t be a sanction against the Palestinian people and is at the moment a very mild sanction. The cement is the biggest problem. And the third party interference is also a big problem. If they can defeat the third-party interference and convince exporters to arrange their goods for easy inspection then what at first is a bit of a nuisance will become a smooth and easy export-import logistical operation.

  38. Oh well you are wrong. I have nothing more to say on this since you have made up your mind in the face of all those others including US military forces who have studied Hamas and actually say otherwise about them.

    You believe what you want to believe but don’t for a moment kid yourself it approximates to truth or forms the basis of any sort of resolution to the problem. Unless genocide is your preferred option.

  39. “Well what is the only other thing you can do aside from murder the leadership?”
    This is a serious question?

  40. Actually this sort of discussion is making me ill.


  41. Yeah its a pretty serious question. If they are determined to kill your people you have two choices. Take the weapons away, or kill the leadership.

    A third choice is to let your own people die.

  42. On moderation elsewhere. I hope this makes it clear to everyone how plausible the temperatures of Venus are, without getting all panicky about back-radiation aka “greenhouse effect”. You won’t get a clearer short explanation than this anywhere else:

    “Any attempt to explain the temperature of Venus needs to take into account some factors that are commonly missed.

    1. The slow rotation of the planet.

    If we view things in terms of strata-and-heat-budgets and not in terms of watts-per-square meter we see that this becomes important since it leads to less disruption between the strata.

    2. Transfer of electrical energy. Via the solar wind and Birkeland currents. We also want to know the effect of air pressure on the conversion of this electrical energy to thermal energy.

    3. Air pressure as mentioned. Its air pressure that would make greenhouse effective. Since the typical greenhouse molecule will merely scatter its absorption region, where the air pressure is low, and not absorb, and convert, this energy.

    This is because to create the transfer to thermal energy, as opposed to mere scattering, you would presumably need the molecule to be disturbed be a second molecule, in the limited time before it would merely re-release the “photon” at a different direction. (Not that I believe in photons but thats the simple model we are working with.)

    It is air pressure which gives us the probability of one molecule being disturbed by another in that limited time.

    Therefore we must infer that greenhouse properties are pretty useless without sufficient air pressure.

    4. The super-rotation of the clouds. Surely this is direct evidence for a sort of convection-oven arrangement. This directly implies powerful overturning that can be used to recycle thermal energy. Just like having a ceiling fan helps with the effectiveness of your heater.

    People who concentrate on these little Watts-Per-Square-metre equations are denying the physicality of the situation. “

  43. On moderation:

    “What you keep conveniently leave out is that Israel once supported and financed Hamas as a counter balance to the PLO.”

    Yes thats true. My understanding is that it could almost be said that the Israelis STARTED Hamas. If so this need not be thought of as a mistake by the way. Since Hezbollah were Irans little bitches, it was then the Syrians that were the major sponsors of Hamas. But now, or last I heard, they have become basically little bitches to Tehran now.

    So what is your point exactly?

    I’ll tell you what your point is. With normal humans such an observation would be merely a history of changing allegiances, sponsorships, various regrets and so forth.

    But when it comes to Jews …. when it comes to Israelis, they are to be collectively saddled with all the guilt of wrong-doings and mistakes that have ever been carried out by any in their number going back decades. The Jews carry some original sin always is how it seems to be.

    Except that they don’t. And when they fight for their freedom they cannot but help to fight for Western values and our freedom as well.

  44. “But when it comes to Jews …. when it comes to Israelis, they are to be collectively saddled with all the guilt of wrong-doings and mistakes that have ever been carried out by any in their number going back decades. The Jews carry some original sin”

    That’s exactly what i’ve been saying, Mr B!

    Those goddamn Jew Bastards!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: