Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
“An island of sanity”
Wounded Israeli and Palestinian children are treated at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv.
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Return of Harry's Place
This is Google's cache of http://hurryupharry.org/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 3 Dec 2012 01:42:45 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Harry's Place webcache: Who Killed Jihad Masharawi’s Son, Omar?
Who Killed Jihad Masharawi’s Son, Omar?
On the 14th of November, the son of BBC video editor Jihad Masharawi died. Here is his account of what happened:
[I've got this pic from the Israel Defense Forces site via google which seems to be where Harry's Place got it from. The pic as it appeared on the HP site is missing from the cache.]
It is, as you can see, situated within a civilian area.
As you can see by looking at aerial photographs of the Gaza Strip, the area contains a large amount of open and agricultural land. It would be entirely possible for Hamas and its allies to store their missiles in and fire them from somewhere other than residential and civilian areas: near mosques, hospitals, playgrounds, football fields, and private homes. However, they choose instead to situate them in locations where they know that, if they are hit by even the most precise of surgical airstrikes, the secondary explosions will quite possibly cause destruction and death in their area.
I’ve posted below a short video which shows what happens when Israel hits an ammunition cache. These are precisely the consequences that Hamas intends. It is often said that this tactic amounts to sheltering behind skirts and prams as it seeks to kill Israeli civilians. I think that’s precisely what it is.
Who killed Jihad Masharawi’s son?
There are a number of possibilities.
First of all, Israel deliberately launched a missile at a civilian house, intending to kill him and his family. That, as the Elder of Ziyon observes, is unlikely:
Nevertheless, there are two other possibilities which should be considered. The first is that Hamas or its allies launched a missile at Israel, but that it fell short and hit Jihad Masharawi’s house. That, quite possibly, is the cause of death ofMahmoud Sadallah, whose body was displayed to the world’s media, to be kissed by the Egyptian Prime Minister. Although it was widely claimed in the press that this child died in an Israeli strike, none appears to have taken place at the time of his death. By contrast, estimates of the percentage of the Hamas rockets which fall short and fall within Gaza range from between 15% and 40%. Damage to homes in Gaza by missiles is particularly perilous, because a large number of homes have propane gas heaters, and domestic generators. A missile or shrapnel hit can cause a secondary explosion. In any event, the Elder of Ziyon notes, the Daily Mirror has now removed the news item which most prominently covered the story, but has not announced its reason for doing so, or considered the matter further.
The final possibility is that the shrapnel which hit Jihad Masharawi’s house resulted from an explosion or a secondary explosion on one of the weapons caches and launching sites near his home.
Which theory is correct? We can’t know for sure: at least not yet. Perhaps there will be an investigation in which facts will become apparent. Israel knows where it launched attacks. It may have intelligence which shows the sites of misfired Hamas etc. rockets. Their proximity to Jihad Masharawi’s house could be ascertained.
Who is morally responsible for the deaths of civilians, where despite not being targeted, they die when Hamas shoots wonky rockets which fall short, or when Israeli missiles ignite weapons caches that are intended to be fired at Israeli cities? I can guarantee you that there are many who take the view that even in these circumstances, Israel and Israel alone should be held accountable.
As BBC Watch has pointed out, as far as the BBC and it’s correspondent Jon Donnison are concerned, there is only one possibility: that for some reason Israel fired a missile into Jihad Masharawi’s house. This is how he puts it:
With limited data, Donnison can’t be sure: but it is very clear what he thinks.
As well as expressing near-certainty that an Israeli strike killed Omar Masharawi, Our Own Correspondent also contained a graphic description of the state of his body and the natural and terrible agony of his father. I think that, having been told the horrific story of how Israel launched a missile into a BBC employee’s house, killing his son, and having heard about the impact of that missile on a tiny child’s face, most people would be unprepared to discuss the possibility that the death had resulted from some other chain of events.
If Israel deliberately launched a missile into a civilian’s house, it should be condemned. If Israel did so, believing that the house was in fact occupied by a military target, then the BBC ought to investigate how it came to make such a terrible mistake. If Omar Masharawi died as a result of a misfired Palestinian rocket or mortar, then that should also be investigated and condemned. Were he to have died following an Israeli strike of a Fajr5 rocket site in Zeitoun, then that should at least be reported. The BBC should ask Hamas why it put a Fajr5 launching site in the middle of a civilian area. It could ask Israel the same question: and its answer would be that it knew that these rockets were being prepared for launch at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
I expect that some effort will now be put into trying to find out precisely what happened. If Israel’s culpability is ascertained, that too will be reported and Israel is likely to express regret, which will be regarded as insincere by most partisans of the Palestinian cause. If further evidence of Hamas culpability emerges then, from past experience, that is likely not to be reported at all. Hamas will express no sorrow, because it does not in fact regret the deaths of Palestinian civilians, and because it knows that it will never be pressed on its siting of missiles and caches within civilian neighbourhoods. In arguments on the internet, and at public meetings, we will be told that Israel should not have responded to missile attacks at all, which are in fact incapable of doing any harm, and in any case deserve them because of the supposed ‘occupied’ nature of Gaza.
As Norm observes:
Metta, what is wrong with traditional names, Throatslasher, Eyegouger, Heartstabber or Skullcrusher?
I kind of assumed they were M*o*r*g*y’s middle names.
Interviewer: “Our condolences, Jihad. Tell me what happened with you.”Zeitoun is a district of Gaza which hosted Iranian Fajr 5 missile sites, ready for launching into Israel. Here is a photograph of one such site:
JM: “Shrapnel hit our house.”
Interviewer: “Shrapnel?”
JM: “Yes. My sister-in-law was killed along with my son and my brother and my other son were wounded.
Interviewer: “In which area?”
JM: “In al Zeitoun.
[I've got this pic from the Israel Defense Forces site via google which seems to be where Harry's Place got it from. The pic as it appeared on the HP site is missing from the cache.]
It is, as you can see, situated within a civilian area.
As you can see by looking at aerial photographs of the Gaza Strip, the area contains a large amount of open and agricultural land. It would be entirely possible for Hamas and its allies to store their missiles in and fire them from somewhere other than residential and civilian areas: near mosques, hospitals, playgrounds, football fields, and private homes. However, they choose instead to situate them in locations where they know that, if they are hit by even the most precise of surgical airstrikes, the secondary explosions will quite possibly cause destruction and death in their area.
I’ve posted below a short video which shows what happens when Israel hits an ammunition cache. These are precisely the consequences that Hamas intends. It is often said that this tactic amounts to sheltering behind skirts and prams as it seeks to kill Israeli civilians. I think that’s precisely what it is.
Who killed Jihad Masharawi’s son?
There are a number of possibilities.
First of all, Israel deliberately launched a missile at a civilian house, intending to kill him and his family. That, as the Elder of Ziyon observes, is unlikely:
The idea that Israel, which managed to kill less than one civilian for every 30 airstrikes in Gaza, targeted the house of a low-level BBC employee during the initial wave of attacks – while he wasn’t home – is simply not believable. Unless you are convinced, ab initio, of Israel’s monstrous nature, there are other explanations that fit the incident far better.However, that still allows for the possibility that an Israeli missile went astray, or that the attack on the house was intentional, but resulted from mistaken information. That certainly could have happened.
Nevertheless, there are two other possibilities which should be considered. The first is that Hamas or its allies launched a missile at Israel, but that it fell short and hit Jihad Masharawi’s house. That, quite possibly, is the cause of death ofMahmoud Sadallah, whose body was displayed to the world’s media, to be kissed by the Egyptian Prime Minister. Although it was widely claimed in the press that this child died in an Israeli strike, none appears to have taken place at the time of his death. By contrast, estimates of the percentage of the Hamas rockets which fall short and fall within Gaza range from between 15% and 40%. Damage to homes in Gaza by missiles is particularly perilous, because a large number of homes have propane gas heaters, and domestic generators. A missile or shrapnel hit can cause a secondary explosion. In any event, the Elder of Ziyon notes, the Daily Mirror has now removed the news item which most prominently covered the story, but has not announced its reason for doing so, or considered the matter further.
The final possibility is that the shrapnel which hit Jihad Masharawi’s house resulted from an explosion or a secondary explosion on one of the weapons caches and launching sites near his home.
Which theory is correct? We can’t know for sure: at least not yet. Perhaps there will be an investigation in which facts will become apparent. Israel knows where it launched attacks. It may have intelligence which shows the sites of misfired Hamas etc. rockets. Their proximity to Jihad Masharawi’s house could be ascertained.
Who is morally responsible for the deaths of civilians, where despite not being targeted, they die when Hamas shoots wonky rockets which fall short, or when Israeli missiles ignite weapons caches that are intended to be fired at Israeli cities? I can guarantee you that there are many who take the view that even in these circumstances, Israel and Israel alone should be held accountable.
As BBC Watch has pointed out, as far as the BBC and it’s correspondent Jon Donnison are concerned, there is only one possibility: that for some reason Israel fired a missile into Jihad Masharawi’s house. This is how he puts it:
“Despite the evidence pointing towards an Israeli air-strike, some have suggested it might have been a misfired Hamas rocket. But at that time, so soon after the launch of Israel’s operation, Israel’s military says mortars had been launched from Gaza, but very few rockets. Mortar fire would not cause the fireball that appears to have engulfed Jihad’s house. Others say that the damage was not consistent with powerful Israeli attacks, but the BBC visited other bomb sites this week with very similar fire damage, where Israel acknowledged carrying out what it called “surgical strikes”. Like at Jihad’s house, there was very little structural damage, but the victims were brought out with massive and fatal burns.”As BBC Watch points out, there is no basis for Donnison’s conviction that an Israeli airstrike hit Jihad Masharawi’s house. Donnison provides observations based upon what he believes to be similar patterns of fire damage. However, the pictures show merely a hole in a building and a fire, which may have been caused by an Israeli airstrike or by any of the other possibilities canvassed above, including one of the ‘very few’ rocket strikes which Donnison discounts. There’s no discussion, either, of the evidence of Jihad Masharawi that ’shrapnel’ – not a rocket – hit his house. That is at odds with Donnison’s belief that the attack looked like the aftermath of an Israel “surgical strike” with a missile. In any event, I don’t know whether an exploding Israeli missile would have left identifiable fragments, but certainly none have been produced.
With limited data, Donnison can’t be sure: but it is very clear what he thinks.
As well as expressing near-certainty that an Israeli strike killed Omar Masharawi, Our Own Correspondent also contained a graphic description of the state of his body and the natural and terrible agony of his father. I think that, having been told the horrific story of how Israel launched a missile into a BBC employee’s house, killing his son, and having heard about the impact of that missile on a tiny child’s face, most people would be unprepared to discuss the possibility that the death had resulted from some other chain of events.
If Israel deliberately launched a missile into a civilian’s house, it should be condemned. If Israel did so, believing that the house was in fact occupied by a military target, then the BBC ought to investigate how it came to make such a terrible mistake. If Omar Masharawi died as a result of a misfired Palestinian rocket or mortar, then that should also be investigated and condemned. Were he to have died following an Israeli strike of a Fajr5 rocket site in Zeitoun, then that should at least be reported. The BBC should ask Hamas why it put a Fajr5 launching site in the middle of a civilian area. It could ask Israel the same question: and its answer would be that it knew that these rockets were being prepared for launch at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
I expect that some effort will now be put into trying to find out precisely what happened. If Israel’s culpability is ascertained, that too will be reported and Israel is likely to express regret, which will be regarded as insincere by most partisans of the Palestinian cause. If further evidence of Hamas culpability emerges then, from past experience, that is likely not to be reported at all. Hamas will express no sorrow, because it does not in fact regret the deaths of Palestinian civilians, and because it knows that it will never be pressed on its siting of missiles and caches within civilian neighbourhoods. In arguments on the internet, and at public meetings, we will be told that Israel should not have responded to missile attacks at all, which are in fact incapable of doing any harm, and in any case deserve them because of the supposed ‘occupied’ nature of Gaza.
As Norm observes:
[F]or a wide swathe of left-liberal and ‘anti-imperialist’ opinion there is now no way Israel can conduct itself from which it will earn moral credit. It is irredeemably tainted in its origin. Conversely, and in the same quarter, there is nothing that Hamas or other representatives of the Palestinian people can do, no wrong or outrage they can commit, which will not be morally ‘cleaned up’ by the perception that these representatives are supposedly the pure vehicle of a struggle against injustice.One of the reasons for this opinion is that much of the media prominently report the deaths of children when they can be attributed to Israel but, as the Daily Mirror’s quiet de-publishing of its story illustrates, have very little to say when the facts shift and the story becomes less certain.
Keywords: Uncategorized.
Comments
| 25 November 2012, 7:57 pm |
I wonder if you’d write a cheap little essay, full of rampant speculation, if your son had just been blown to bits.
Nah. I doubt it.
Nah. I doubt it.
| 25 November 2012, 8:00 pm |
The BBC were very happy to broadcast just such rampant speculation, when one of their employees son’s was killed.
The certainty which underpins your comment, above, is premised upon your belief in the satanic nature of Israel and the angelic nature of Hamas. That’s because you have no basis to conclude that the other possibilities are not, in fact, correct.
The certainty which underpins your comment, above, is premised upon your belief in the satanic nature of Israel and the angelic nature of Hamas. That’s because you have no basis to conclude that the other possibilities are not, in fact, correct.
| 25 November 2012, 8:05 pm |
Harry – please explain exactly what is wrong with the post.
| 25 November 2012, 8:26 pm |
Harrys right, why speculate, it was probably Israel. Don’t make a big issue out of it.
| 25 November 2012, 8:27 pm |
Harry
So you’re saying that because the death of a child is a terrible thing, it is distasteful for anyone to queston the initial or common explanation for why it occurred???
Distraught parent and friends: Jones deliberately killed my child!
Coroner: I’m sorry, but that has yet to be determined.
Distraught parent and friends: You heartless, vicious bastard. Don’t you care that my child was killed? If you cared you’d agree that Jones deliberately killed him! Otherwise you are callously mocking our grief by calling our explanation into question…
Murmuring crowd: Yes Yes… Callous bastard. How would you like your child to be killed? You must be a friend of Jones!
So you’re saying that because the death of a child is a terrible thing, it is distasteful for anyone to queston the initial or common explanation for why it occurred???
Distraught parent and friends: Jones deliberately killed my child!
Coroner: I’m sorry, but that has yet to be determined.
Distraught parent and friends: You heartless, vicious bastard. Don’t you care that my child was killed? If you cared you’d agree that Jones deliberately killed him! Otherwise you are callously mocking our grief by calling our explanation into question…
Murmuring crowd: Yes Yes… Callous bastard. How would you like your child to be killed? You must be a friend of Jones!
| 25 November 2012, 8:31 pm |
The BBC’s Middle Eastern correspondents, seem to be, without fail, biased towards the Palestinian positions. Barbara Plett of course famously crying over the death of Arafat (how is she still working for the beeb?), Jeremy Bowen, Jon Dennison, and a myraid of lower ranking and freelance reporters.
Is there a BBC Middle Eastern correspondent that has even been accused of pro-Israel bias by anybody other than MediaLens?
Is there a BBC Middle Eastern correspondent that has even been accused of pro-Israel bias by anybody other than MediaLens?
| 25 November 2012, 8:37 pm |
‘Harry’ has no response to this post, because he’s a nasty little mersey trout whose sole purpose in life is to troll.
| 25 November 2012, 8:41 pm |
“Harry
I wonder if you’d write a cheap little essay, full of rampant speculation, if your son had just been blown to bits”
The baby quite clearly wasn’t blown to bits.
Fact is we haven’t seen the body of Omar Masharawi unlike the vast majority of the dead children killed during the conflict, the body is warped in a shroud, my guess is that the body was burnt.
The home is burnt out, and not bombed;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/11/bbc1.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/11/bbc2.jpg
Could have been an IDF round, but there is no shrapnel and the doors are on their hinges, the shutter are on the windows and so not much of a blast.
Could easy be a phosphorus mortar round, routinely fired into Israel, propellent from a missile, or even a secondary domestic fire caused by a nearby explosion.
I wonder if you’d write a cheap little essay, full of rampant speculation, if your son had just been blown to bits”
The baby quite clearly wasn’t blown to bits.
Fact is we haven’t seen the body of Omar Masharawi unlike the vast majority of the dead children killed during the conflict, the body is warped in a shroud, my guess is that the body was burnt.
The home is burnt out, and not bombed;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/11/bbc1.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/11/bbc2.jpg
Could have been an IDF round, but there is no shrapnel and the doors are on their hinges, the shutter are on the windows and so not much of a blast.
Could easy be a phosphorus mortar round, routinely fired into Israel, propellent from a missile, or even a secondary domestic fire caused by a nearby explosion.
| 25 November 2012, 8:44 pm |
There’s way to much detail and things that are unknowable here.
But since the OP writer seems to have a certain knowledge of weapons and their specifiactions, perhaps he could expand on how shells fired from ships out at sea can be used in a controlled and humane way in a place like Gaza And what there targets were or might have been. My thinking is that they wouldn’t be that accurate and would be unsuitable for an urban environment.
This does seem a bit of a hopeless thread for HP in my opinion because I think that for quite a few people here Israel can do no wrong, even when the death toll was 1400 during Cast Lead. Everything will be spun and justified.
Not that Israel isn’t in an impossible situation, and only has this blunt instrument of dropping bombs on people as a way of dealing with its problems.
There were reports of ships seen loading in Iran in the last few days that could be in the process of resupplying Gaza with more missiles.
Getting into the detail of types of bomb damage and injuries on bodies sounds too much like 9/11 truthers banging on about Tower Seven at Ground Zero.
But since the OP writer seems to have a certain knowledge of weapons and their specifiactions, perhaps he could expand on how shells fired from ships out at sea can be used in a controlled and humane way in a place like Gaza And what there targets were or might have been. My thinking is that they wouldn’t be that accurate and would be unsuitable for an urban environment.
This does seem a bit of a hopeless thread for HP in my opinion because I think that for quite a few people here Israel can do no wrong, even when the death toll was 1400 during Cast Lead. Everything will be spun and justified.
Not that Israel isn’t in an impossible situation, and only has this blunt instrument of dropping bombs on people as a way of dealing with its problems.
There were reports of ships seen loading in Iran in the last few days that could be in the process of resupplying Gaza with more missiles.
Getting into the detail of types of bomb damage and injuries on bodies sounds too much like 9/11 truthers banging on about Tower Seven at Ground Zero.
| 25 November 2012, 8:56 pm |
One possibility that nobody has canvassed is that Masharawi’s house was deliberately targeted by Hamas.
| 25 November 2012, 9:01 pm |
We all know that the truth doesn’t matter.
News isn’t information, it’s “reality TV”. The MSM business model is to pander to a demographic that likes getting outraged esp. at Israel and at the same time pander to the militants on the ground who are often on their payroll.
The internet seemed to provide the opportunity to receive and evaluate information without the MSM filter/spin. But most people don’t have the time or interest – so the MSM is more powerful than ever since it is now closely aligned with govt.
News isn’t information, it’s “reality TV”. The MSM business model is to pander to a demographic that likes getting outraged esp. at Israel and at the same time pander to the militants on the ground who are often on their payroll.
The internet seemed to provide the opportunity to receive and evaluate information without the MSM filter/spin. But most people don’t have the time or interest – so the MSM is more powerful than ever since it is now closely aligned with govt.
| 25 November 2012, 9:18 pm |
‘damon:
Getting into the detail of types of bomb damage and injuries on bodies sounds too much like 9/11 truthers banging on about Tower Seven at Ground Zero.’
Spoken like a true pedophile.
Getting into the detail of types of bomb damage and injuries on bodies sounds too much like 9/11 truthers banging on about Tower Seven at Ground Zero.’
Spoken like a true pedophile.
| 25 November 2012, 9:18 pm |
Damon
“My thinking is that they (shells fired by navy) wouldn’t be that accurate and would be unsuitable for an urban environment.”
Unsuitable? What would be your military recommendation for weapons to be deployed against persons firing rockets into your country from “an urban environment”? What would be “suitable”? Please give details as tthe IDF will be all agog for your advice.
You’re not much of a military thinker, are you? I’ve asked you before what you would do in schematic situations I outlined and you never answered – just burbled evasively about how maybe, maybe, someone was about to arrange a truce…
“My thinking is that they (shells fired by navy) wouldn’t be that accurate and would be unsuitable for an urban environment.”
Unsuitable? What would be your military recommendation for weapons to be deployed against persons firing rockets into your country from “an urban environment”? What would be “suitable”? Please give details as tthe IDF will be all agog for your advice.
You’re not much of a military thinker, are you? I’ve asked you before what you would do in schematic situations I outlined and you never answered – just burbled evasively about how maybe, maybe, someone was about to arrange a truce…
| 25 November 2012, 9:20 pm |
ElderofZiyon had an earlier post about Omar Mishrawi’s death and the photo evidence of the damage done by the strike that killed him. He included commentary from an unnamed source (presumably an IDF officer or vet) about the nature of the damage and its possible source:
It was only subsequently that, following fishing by such bloggers as Elder of Ziyon and others that it became clear that at least one of the children must have been killed by a Hamas missile which had fallen short after launch. Some papers (like the Mirror) have withdrawn the sensationally outraged coverage and just deleted the page. Reuters acknowledged it had wrongly attributed the death of Mohammed Sadallah to Israeli strikes.
But as I wrote on my blog, you also have to face up to the extent to which these children’s bodies have been desecrated and used as propaganda props. Which brings us to the case of Jihad Misharawi’s use of his son’s body.
What would have had to happen for the image of him grieving over his son to be photographed? It isn’t taken where he was killed. Instead, the wrapped corpse of the child has been taken to a place with a whiteboard carrying Arabic messages thanking volunteers. And there Misharawi poses in his grief. Why? Where is the rest of the family? The child had, according to Donnison’s account been killed and burnt up by the strike. So why bring him, by now presumably washed and clothed in a shroud to the place in the picture? It’s clearly not a mosque, and all the men surrounding him are of military age.Here’s a link to a BBC video of Misharawi carrying the child and being interviewed–it’s not the location in the still photo. He clearly says his son was killed by shrapnel (seems inconsistent with the burned out image presented in Danahar’s report) and that it happened in Zeitoun, as in the transcript above, not the different area of Gaza City reported by Donnison. And it’s certainly not the area that the video is made in. He’s surrounded by young men who start shouting “Allah hu Akhbar” and some belligerent sounding chants before the video cuts out.
Finally, from start to finish Jihad Misharawi is presented as a “BBC picture editor” and/or a BBC journalist. However, at no time did any of the BBC coverage clarify that for a local journalist to get accredited to report from Gaza, he must either be a member of Hamas, or at the very least someone who can be depended on only to report the Hamas line.
At no point did anyone in any of the BBC reports (and everything we have on Jihad Misharawi appears to originate from a BBC source) ask if he or his family have connections with Hamas or one of the other jihadi terror groups. No one asked if there were any Hamas fighters in his vicinity or any Hamas targets nearby.
We are all grieved by a child dying. On the other hand, it has been a real feature of the Hamas propaganda effort during this conflict to organize parades and photo opportunities of children displayed like so many trophies to rouse hatred and condemnation of Israel, and for the first time, mainstream media, including the Washington Post, the Telegraph as well as tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror have all run the dead baby pictures and presented them as the result of Israeli targeting.
I received an email from someone with serious military experience. Here is the analysis:
First of all, Israel isn’t using incendiary weapons, and won’t, so any “mass of fire” that hits anyone is going to be a secondary effect from the original high-explosive effect, and will involve something like a propane container, chemical container, etc. Israeli bombs and air-to-surface missiles don’t produce masses of fire hitting people’s roofs.
Second, if the “round” of an Israeli weapon had literally come through the roof where the hole is visible in the photo, there’d be no house to take pictures of now. Compare the photos of the Masharawi house with the photos of the wreckage of the Al-Dalu (Doula) house. Then compare the Masharawi photos with photos of the Israeli homes hit by Hamas rockets.
This isn’t definitive, of course, and there are other things to consider, like whether Hamas rockets were flying at the time. [Which they most definitely were on the first day of the operation - EoZ].
OK, now I’m looking at the second photo of damage. If the blast from an Israeli weapon had occurred inside this home, the wood on the windows would be entirely gone. No trace left. The walls wouldn’t be intact. Their top portions, at least, would be a pile of rubble around the base of the wall. The iron grilles on the windows would probably be lying on the ground somewhere.
The story doesn’t hang together. An Israeli bomb could not have penetrated the roof of this structure, then exploded, and have left the structure looking as it does: charred on some surfaces, but still intact.I note that a Hamas rocket could have done exactly this damage, including the projectile-through-the-roof feature. There are other conceivable scenarios in which secondary damage could have been done by an Israeli hit nearby, but in no case would it have been possible for an Israeli weapon to penetrate the roof as described, and then do nothing more than char the surfaces and rearrange the furniture.
It was only subsequently that, following fishing by such bloggers as Elder of Ziyon and others that it became clear that at least one of the children must have been killed by a Hamas missile which had fallen short after launch. Some papers (like the Mirror) have withdrawn the sensationally outraged coverage and just deleted the page. Reuters acknowledged it had wrongly attributed the death of Mohammed Sadallah to Israeli strikes.
But as I wrote on my blog, you also have to face up to the extent to which these children’s bodies have been desecrated and used as propaganda props. Which brings us to the case of Jihad Misharawi’s use of his son’s body.
What would have had to happen for the image of him grieving over his son to be photographed? It isn’t taken where he was killed. Instead, the wrapped corpse of the child has been taken to a place with a whiteboard carrying Arabic messages thanking volunteers. And there Misharawi poses in his grief. Why? Where is the rest of the family? The child had, according to Donnison’s account been killed and burnt up by the strike. So why bring him, by now presumably washed and clothed in a shroud to the place in the picture? It’s clearly not a mosque, and all the men surrounding him are of military age.Here’s a link to a BBC video of Misharawi carrying the child and being interviewed–it’s not the location in the still photo. He clearly says his son was killed by shrapnel (seems inconsistent with the burned out image presented in Danahar’s report) and that it happened in Zeitoun, as in the transcript above, not the different area of Gaza City reported by Donnison. And it’s certainly not the area that the video is made in. He’s surrounded by young men who start shouting “Allah hu Akhbar” and some belligerent sounding chants before the video cuts out.
Finally, from start to finish Jihad Misharawi is presented as a “BBC picture editor” and/or a BBC journalist. However, at no time did any of the BBC coverage clarify that for a local journalist to get accredited to report from Gaza, he must either be a member of Hamas, or at the very least someone who can be depended on only to report the Hamas line.
At no point did anyone in any of the BBC reports (and everything we have on Jihad Misharawi appears to originate from a BBC source) ask if he or his family have connections with Hamas or one of the other jihadi terror groups. No one asked if there were any Hamas fighters in his vicinity or any Hamas targets nearby.
As a senior CNN reporter said in January 2009, this is the determinant of the news we see about Hamas on our screens and in our newspapers:
And right now you could make a real case that the message that’s coming out is one that’s essentially controlled by people that are perhaps more partisan to the situation inside the Gaza Strip than a lot of international journalists.
COOPER: Inside Gaza press control by Hamas is heavy-handed. There are few press freedoms inside Gaza, and Hamas controls who reports from there and where they can go.While pictures of wounded children being are brought to hospital are clearly encouraged, we rarely see images of Hamas fighters or their rockets fired into Israel.
| 25 November 2012, 9:21 pm |
Getting into the detail of types of bomb damage and injuries on bodies sounds too much like 9/11 truthers banging on about Tower Seven at Ground Zero.
Questioning Hamas’s version of events when Hamas has a history of lying about deaths of Gazans caused by its own errant rockets is not equivalent to questioning the fully-investigated events of 9/11.
Questioning Hamas’s version of events when Hamas has a history of lying about deaths of Gazans caused by its own errant rockets is not equivalent to questioning the fully-investigated events of 9/11.
| 25 November 2012, 9:27 pm |
Harry I think I will name my sons, Armageddon, Thanatos, Berserkir, and Sheol, what do you think? Better than Ghandi, Proust, Wilfred and Chico surely?
| 25 November 2012, 10:03 pm |
Metta, what is wrong with traditional names, Throatslasher, Eyegouger, Heartstabber or Skullcrusher?
| 25 November 2012, 10:08 pm |
So we are expected to believe that Donnison is not only a BBC reporter, but also an expert on bomb damage. Usually a good reporter’s investigation would include the opinion of experts in the field and not just the spread of what is after all simply gossip.
| 25 November 2012, 10:19 pm |
“Sharon
So we are expected to believe that Donnison is not only a BBC reporter, but also an expert on bomb damage.”
No you stupid bastard. We expect reporters to report what they know to be true, not to repeat as truth, what they have been told by HAMAS.
There is no evidence that this baby was killed by an IDF munition, other than HAMAS states it to be the case. I think that HAMAS are truthful as a Guardian editorial, but who knows, maybe the IDF did hit the BBC’s “Jihad’s” house.
So we are expected to believe that Donnison is not only a BBC reporter, but also an expert on bomb damage.”
No you stupid bastard. We expect reporters to report what they know to be true, not to repeat as truth, what they have been told by HAMAS.
There is no evidence that this baby was killed by an IDF munition, other than HAMAS states it to be the case. I think that HAMAS are truthful as a Guardian editorial, but who knows, maybe the IDF did hit the BBC’s “Jihad’s” house.
| 25 November 2012, 10:34 pm |
it was probably Israel
Why would it matter, or make any difference if it was?
Undoubtedly there are several Gazan deaths that resulted from Israel’s response to Gaza rockets.
The point of the article is that civilians died because Hamas placed rockets and missiles almost in children’s bedrooms when they could have cited them in any open area. The point is that Hamas used human shields and this is a story of one of them.
Why would it matter, or make any difference if it was?
Undoubtedly there are several Gazan deaths that resulted from Israel’s response to Gaza rockets.
The point of the article is that civilians died because Hamas placed rockets and missiles almost in children’s bedrooms when they could have cited them in any open area. The point is that Hamas used human shields and this is a story of one of them.
| 25 November 2012, 10:36 pm |
Doc. What about bomber kebab with the trimmings of course. Strange name for a normal ! person, ‘Jihad’. Sounds like someone that wants a fight.
| 25 November 2012, 10:38 pm |
even when the death toll was 1400 during Cast Lead.
Except as a memorial to the dead civilians amongst the 1400 does that mean anything useful or contribute to the debate? Also, how remarkably low the death toll this time.
Except as a memorial to the dead civilians amongst the 1400 does that mean anything useful or contribute to the debate? Also, how remarkably low the death toll this time.
| 25 November 2012, 10:46 pm |
Strange name for a normal ! person, ‘Jihad’. Sounds like someone that wants a fight.
You can’t help what your parents name you. And “jihad” can refer to non-violent struggles.
One of the top officials of the Israeli trade union federation the Histadrut is named Jihad.
You can’t help what your parents name you. And “jihad” can refer to non-violent struggles.
One of the top officials of the Israeli trade union federation the Histadrut is named Jihad.
| 25 November 2012, 10:53 pm |
Metta, what is wrong with traditional names, Throatslasher, Eyegouger, Heartstabber or Skullcrusher?
I kind of assumed they were M*o*r*g*y’s middle names.
| 25 November 2012, 10:53 pm |
Marvin,
>>Is there a BBC Middle Eastern correspondent that has even been accused of pro-Israel bias by anybody other than MediaLens?>>
Historically, yes. CAABU, LMEC and similar organisations used to flog that horse all the time in the 1970s. One example would be the BBC’s resident correspondent in Jerusalem, Michael Elkins, who got targeted by what was then a fledgling pro-Palestinian lobby quite a bit. Believe it or not the Guardian was regarded by some as a hotbed of “Zionist propaganda” in the days when Eric Silver and Terence Prittie used to work there.
All nonsense, of course, but so is much of the current round of denunciation and vilification.
>>Is there a BBC Middle Eastern correspondent that has even been accused of pro-Israel bias by anybody other than MediaLens?>>
Historically, yes. CAABU, LMEC and similar organisations used to flog that horse all the time in the 1970s. One example would be the BBC’s resident correspondent in Jerusalem, Michael Elkins, who got targeted by what was then a fledgling pro-Palestinian lobby quite a bit. Believe it or not the Guardian was regarded by some as a hotbed of “Zionist propaganda” in the days when Eric Silver and Terence Prittie used to work there.
All nonsense, of course, but so is much of the current round of denunciation and vilification.
| 25 November 2012, 10:56 pm |
Another reason the number of civilians who died in Gaza is much higher than it is in Israel is that ordinary Israelis have to have shelters, either in their homes or ordinary ones. Gazans have none.
The Hamas regime chooses to provide itself with Fajr5 and Grad rockets (not cheap) instead of asking donor nations like Iran and Qatarto provide its people with shelters.
However, Hamas has spent huge sums on bunkers– for its top brass and its missiles….
The Hamas regime chooses to provide itself with Fajr5 and Grad rockets (not cheap) instead of asking donor nations like Iran and Qatarto provide its people with shelters.
However, Hamas has spent huge sums on bunkers– for its top brass and its missiles….
| 25 November 2012, 10:56 pm |
I’m reading about Eritrean refugees..
Hams are scum and only scum would support them.
Hams are scum and only scum would support them.
| 25 November 2012, 11:57 pm |
There is another possibility — no child was killed.
Look at the four pictures in the Daily Mail. There are many inconsistencies, apart from the father’s change of jumper.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233248/Anguish-BBC-journalist-cradles-body-baby-son-died-Israeli-rocket-attack-Gaza.html
Look at the four pictures in the Daily Mail. There are many inconsistencies, apart from the father’s change of jumper.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233248/Anguish-BBC-journalist-cradles-body-baby-son-died-Israeli-rocket-attack-Gaza.html
| 26 November 2012, 12:11 am |
The name must be an error in translation. It should be “Peaceful Inner Struggle” Masharawi.
| 26 November 2012, 12:14 am |
“No you stupid bastard….”
Doc,
Take some deep breaths. I think Sharon was making the same point as you.
Doc,
Take some deep breaths. I think Sharon was making the same point as you.
| 26 November 2012, 12:15 am |
“I wonder if you’d write a cheap little essay, full of rampant speculation, if your son had just been blown to bits.”
Harry, if I was called Jihad I’d blow anyone to bits if it harmed civilisation.
Harry, if I was called Jihad I’d blow anyone to bits if it harmed civilisation.
| 26 November 2012, 12:15 am |
The damage reminds me of the ambulance during the war against the Hezbollah where you could see the hole in the car’s roof and some burnt out areas inside. The EoZ was also very good about discussing how such damage was unlikely due to missile, which would have obliterated the ambulance. Probably the same thing here. Anyway, it’s a war.
| 26 November 2012, 12:36 am |
Off-topic but still on the subject of imagery designed to provoke hatred of Israel–
The Guardian readers’ editor has acknowledged that Bell’s cartoon of Netanyahu as the puppet-master of Cameron and Hague used anti-semitic imagery which should not have been used.
Bell is totally unrepentant and you have to read the convoluted and self-serving logic he uses in the readers’ editor article to deny that the cartoon was anti-semitic to appreciate just how twisted and hate-filled he is.
The Guardian readers’ editor has acknowledged that Bell’s cartoon of Netanyahu as the puppet-master of Cameron and Hague used anti-semitic imagery which should not have been used.
Bell is totally unrepentant and you have to read the convoluted and self-serving logic he uses in the readers’ editor article to deny that the cartoon was anti-semitic to appreciate just how twisted and hate-filled he is.
| 26 November 2012, 12:39 am |
Very shortly these propaganda battles regarding casualties in the current conflict will be a minor distraction once the fallout from the Arafat exhumation gets going.
| 26 November 2012, 1:06 am |
What makes it unlikely that death and destruction was delivered by the IDF is that the Israelis aren’t completely lacking in media savvy themselves, and in this operation, they have been particularly careful, showing the lessons learned from Operation Cast Lead. The problem is that the media is either still happy to be fooled because they can’t lose by leading with a story that makes Israel look bad (ie: the ridiculous life being given to the “Arafat was poisoned” story after the probability of the Israelis dosing him with polonium didn’t withstand the smell test) or to take Hamas’s stories whole cloth because of the Beeb’s anti-Israel bias.
One story from the last Hamas-Israel war the status of which I’d like to know is that of the deaths of Dr. Abueish’s three daughters and niece. Abueish, the author of “I shall not hate” now living in Toronto, was pursuing a law suit against Israel for refusing to apologize for their deaths. As Dr. Abueish travelled regularly between Gaza and Israel to treat infertile Jewish couples it has always struck me more likely that Hamas operatives probably used the opportunity to draw fire toward the doctor’s house to show him what they thought of his collaboration with the enemy.
One story from the last Hamas-Israel war the status of which I’d like to know is that of the deaths of Dr. Abueish’s three daughters and niece. Abueish, the author of “I shall not hate” now living in Toronto, was pursuing a law suit against Israel for refusing to apologize for their deaths. As Dr. Abueish travelled regularly between Gaza and Israel to treat infertile Jewish couples it has always struck me more likely that Hamas operatives probably used the opportunity to draw fire toward the doctor’s house to show him what they thought of his collaboration with the enemy.
| 26 November 2012, 1:12 am |
mick O
26 November 2012, 12:39 am
One has to wonder what sort of chicanery is going to be employed here, and what sort of subject matter experts are going to be called upon to carry out the examination and testing — some leftovers from the 9/11 truthers?
26 November 2012, 12:39 am
One has to wonder what sort of chicanery is going to be employed here, and what sort of subject matter experts are going to be called upon to carry out the examination and testing — some leftovers from the 9/11 truthers?
| 26 November 2012, 1:35 am |
Anything that keeps Arafat from resting in a quiet grave has my support.
| 26 November 2012, 1:35 am |
This is the same Jon Donnison who tweeted a photo of a dead Syrian child being used as Hamas propaganda right?
Now, anyone can make such a mistake, but,’what I don’t get is: why on earth would Donnison bother retweeting a generic “dead child murdered by Israelis” photo, when he’d had such a brutal, graphic, personal experience of such wanton slaughter, from the very start of the conflict?
I just don’t get it. You’ve seen a colleague’s child eviscerated; you’ve got vivid anecdotal evidence. Yet, rather than report this at the time, you hold it back, meanwhile tweeting other photos of dead children which turn out to be from an entirely different conflict, and were used to clearly dupe you into spreading propaganda…
Really really odd..
Now, anyone can make such a mistake, but,’what I don’t get is: why on earth would Donnison bother retweeting a generic “dead child murdered by Israelis” photo, when he’d had such a brutal, graphic, personal experience of such wanton slaughter, from the very start of the conflict?
I just don’t get it. You’ve seen a colleague’s child eviscerated; you’ve got vivid anecdotal evidence. Yet, rather than report this at the time, you hold it back, meanwhile tweeting other photos of dead children which turn out to be from an entirely different conflict, and were used to clearly dupe you into spreading propaganda…
Really really odd..
| 26 November 2012, 1:56 am |
To an extent, I agree with Harry’s comment at the top of the thread: It is extremely morbid that we are discussing “who” is responsible for the deaths of civilians in general and this specific child. But what Harry neglects to consider is that the conversation is initiated and necessitated by the actions and reporting of the Hamas propeganda unit and the BBC. Making these deaths an indictment against Israel, it’s actions and it’s motives, requires a forensic analysis of thefacts to demonstrate the veracity or otherwise of the claim. It is the propaganda arm of Hamas and the BBC that have made this accusation against Israel, but what Harry is saying is that Israel may not question the substance of the accusation as they try to defend it.
| 26 November 2012, 2:14 am |
Gene. Henceforth Jihad will be known as peace and the Lord sayeth there will be no dispute about this matter and suicide bombers changed their attire and everyone lived in peace. And Gene had three sensible children that lived long I do hope.
| 26 November 2012, 2:31 am |
Gene no you can’t help what your father calls you, but it doesn’t mean that it is not indicative of other aspects of your child rearing .
I have known a Hitler and a Stalin. Hitler was an Indonesian member of the Batak tribe who were Christianised by German missionaries when Hitler was a terribly popular name. He wasn’t Hitlerian he was a very sweet teacher but giggled when he recounted how his grandfather had been a cannibal who ate his own Father when he became frail according to according to custom and he was the son of a chief whose father was very pro Hitler.
The Stalin I knew was the son of a mercurial Brazilian trade Union leader and he was a nasty bastard Stalinist who came to a sticky end.
I always wanted to invite them both to dinner with printed invites but they were on opposite sides of the Earth.
I have known a Hitler and a Stalin. Hitler was an Indonesian member of the Batak tribe who were Christianised by German missionaries when Hitler was a terribly popular name. He wasn’t Hitlerian he was a very sweet teacher but giggled when he recounted how his grandfather had been a cannibal who ate his own Father when he became frail according to according to custom and he was the son of a chief whose father was very pro Hitler.
The Stalin I knew was the son of a mercurial Brazilian trade Union leader and he was a nasty bastard Stalinist who came to a sticky end.
I always wanted to invite them both to dinner with printed invites but they were on opposite sides of the Earth.
| 26 November 2012, 2:35 am |
[I am trying to post anonymously here because I don't have any email addresses which do not contain my full name (because I have no reason to need them), but I do not wish to encourage those who view cyberstalking of someone with a potentially opposing view as reasonable behaviour.]
I stumbled across this website because of the comments made by the bbc correspondent about bloggers challenging his account of the ‘likely’ cause of the childs death. I was curious to find out if there were conflicting accounts elsewhere.
Having read what was here – I wished (if you don’t mind too much) too make a comment or two before I gradually retreat. I am not here because I have any particular axe to grind with anybody- and I am making no presumption about this site or those who comment here regularly. (Particularly as I haven’t seen enough to do so).
On the BBC account -
[I have worked in the defence industry and munitions in particular for a long time so I have some familiarity with at least part of the multitude of such objects (or varying reliability of performance) we have devised as a species which could cause such an event.]
If you really think that a BBC radio 4 ‘from our own correspondent’ programme journalist would invent a dead baby belonging to a colleague you are living on another planet and unable to be reached with merely human technology such as the internet. (The diversity and quality of this programme is remarkable- check it out!).
Whilst there are many possibilities as to how an apartment could be penetrated by an object and then burn ferociously in a warzone- the fact that it was not flattened is irrelevant as to determining whether this was an IDF strike. Missiles come in all sizes and purposes- as do other types of munitions. The IDF has more experience than most of having to carry out targeted strikes in urban areas where it may wish to have a smaller guided payload weapons to limit collateral damage- such as the those carried on a drone. Likewise a shell -(which does not contain high explosive such as a smoke round) could arrive unguided to the wrong location, penetrate a weak structure then burn with considerable ferocity without being described as an actual incendiary device. (I haven’t seen comment on the use of actual incendiary weapons this time however during cast lead WP shells were used to achieve a similar affect on the UN warehouse in Gaza at least- hence it featuring heavily in their report on that conflict.)
On the recent situation in Gaza -
Is it callously irresponsible that Hamas operates rockets or missiles sites close to civilians thereby attracting israeli fire onto those civilians? – certainly.
However – the gaza strip is a very small area under very close surveillance. Hamas intends to make its weapons – and (at least some of) its fighters difficult to track and spot in peacetime and in war- and wishes to enable such operations to be carried out quickly and with as little opportunity to prevent or observe them being carried out. As a result it is inevitable that this will mean that the weapons move closer to the urban areas where suspicious activity would be harder to detect.
Furthermore Hamas’s command and control probably becomes very rudimentary very quickly in wartime and is intended not to be reliant on any technology which can be jammed, overheard, de-crypted or fail due to long term power blackouts. This may end up degrading to the level of neighbourhood runners.
The effectiveness of the israeli blockade on even simple materials such as concrete and metal would make preparation of the sort of sophistocated tunnel complexes used by hezbollah to hide and move weapons and fighters in south lebanon impossible. (and given the level of surveillance probably impossible to conceal – and therefore pointless unless incredibly strongly constructed….as the israeli firepower is vast and gaza relatively tiny in area).
The more rural areas are presumed by both sides to be a completely free fire zone. With so little cover which will not be levelled if deemed to be even slightly relevant by the IDF – the desire to remain in the fight makes it again inevitable that Hamas will move into the built up area for pragmatic reasons again. (There is very little point in calling this cowardice. Hamas regards itself as the ’state’ in gaza and as such has a responsibility to preserve its ability to function as a military force in the event that a ground invasion occurs- where it would be far more likely to be able to exact casualties on the IDF.)
Incidently such a blockade also makes the construction of shelters for the civilian populace a complete pipe dream.
Whether you despise Hamas’s ideology or not – they are the de-facto government of gaza and have been democratically elected in the past.
It is utterly illogical to pretend this is not a war between states (in hte eyes of the combatants at least) whether the military imbalance makes the nature of the conflict into a bizarre alternate model. ie where being completely slaughtered (along with those you are supposed to have protected) becomes a ‘victory’ simply through your organisation continuing to exist in any form.
Also given the ongoing economic crisis in gaza during the blockade there are unfortunately hundreds of priorities which could come before shelters.
On the conflict in general-
I have lived long enough to have seen israel spurn enormous quantities of admiration, respect and goodwill across the world. I grew up in a world amazed by the bravery and the skill of the IDF.
This change in attitude is not due to infantile siding with the underdog. It is not due to anyone forgetting the lesson of the holocaust. It is down to talking about peace whilst continuously building settlements outwith the 67 borders. It is also about exacting collective punishment on the palestinian population as a group for their refusal to meekly accept a ridiculously miserable life in a few fragments of the country which their predecessors lived in. (Sometimes within sight of their former homes and land within the renamed towns and cities of Israel. Their cultural memory of the country which existed in those places prior to Israel is just as inconvenient as they are.)
Those who are friends of israel should understand that whilst the continuation of low level conflict alongside settlement building in the West Bank may appear a successful model to the israeli state (as the facts on the ground -within their area of control- continue to move in their favour), this is merely making it impossible for them to have any eventual overture for peace be remotely credible.
If the Palestinian people chose extremists like Hamas -that reflects on the duplicitous way that moderate leaders have been co-opted and then made ridiculous by israeli violations of previous agreements.
If zionism places the rights of jews above non jews, and this is inherent in the nature of the legal framework of the current israeli state then what palestinian leader could agree a one or two state solution which guarantees all or part of the palestinian people being left as second class citizens in perpituity?
In the name of security laws discriminating citizens by race and religion which are incompatible with the view israel holds of its own place as an honourary ‘western’ democracy are in effect.
The changes demanded to make the israeli state not a ‘zionist’ state (and meet the criteria of co-existence with Hamas and other in a two or one state settlement) are merely a recalibration back to the basic level of equal rights that are a pre-requisite for the democratic state israel proclaims itself to be.
Any such nonsense of the palestinian’s being in the grip of a death cult and seeking leadership who will lead them through fire until israel in any form is wiped off the map is nothing but drivel.
Israel now posseses the power to make peace on incredibly favourable terms.
Surely this must be better than perpetual war?
Otherwise what is the endpoint-
War in the west until the last gazan has been driven to the slums of cairo – and hamas are still raiding and rocketing from the sinai whilst becoming egypt’s hezbollah?
Or squeezing the life out of the west bank until jordan (already majority palestinian demographically) is racked by civil war due to a further influx of palestinians and ceases being neutral to become a hostile palestinian majority governed neighbour?
Surely there must be a better future than a victory (at best) requiring longer and bigger fences and israeli’s still unable to travel in the entire middle east – and at worst further sporadic bouts of conflicts with a choice of hostile neighbours.
The unconditional financial assistance from the USA underpins the israel economy, its military prowess, its research and development – releases Israel’s own tax revenue from other purposes to fund settlement (including duplicating infrastructure and the security walls).
It also affords the sponsoring of new immigrants with little or no connections to Israel who are willing to serve as settler militia to protect their new and better life. This sort of shameless policy of expansion by any means via hired economic migrants makes a fool of any palestinian politician who even suggests Israel is still interested in peace.
If the continuation of such generous assistance by the US was made conditional on a genuine pursuit of peace – this conflict could end very quickly.
As the deal which could be made now is far in advance of that which previous generations of israeli’s could ever have dreamed of- it is not unreasonable for a friend of israel to intervene in such a way.
Especially in return for its unceasing genorosity and the considerable difficulty caused to a hundred other foreign policy concerns ham-strung as the price of unequivocal support of Israel.
The flipside to this is this eventually a politician in america may effectively galvanise the american taxpayer to the inconsistency of massive aid to Israel versus the industrial regeneration, public services, improved military equipment, infrastructure which they are being told is unaffordable.
The worst thing anyone supportive of israel could do is work on the assumption that a lasting and workable peace is irrelevant as the american financial aid will be affordable in perpetuity- thereby leaving the risk to israeli security that such support may be withdrawn without suitable adjustment at a time not of israel’s choosing.
Anyhoo…that’s my tuppence worth.
Best wishes for the future.
No name bloke.
I stumbled across this website because of the comments made by the bbc correspondent about bloggers challenging his account of the ‘likely’ cause of the childs death. I was curious to find out if there were conflicting accounts elsewhere.
Having read what was here – I wished (if you don’t mind too much) too make a comment or two before I gradually retreat. I am not here because I have any particular axe to grind with anybody- and I am making no presumption about this site or those who comment here regularly. (Particularly as I haven’t seen enough to do so).
On the BBC account -
[I have worked in the defence industry and munitions in particular for a long time so I have some familiarity with at least part of the multitude of such objects (or varying reliability of performance) we have devised as a species which could cause such an event.]
If you really think that a BBC radio 4 ‘from our own correspondent’ programme journalist would invent a dead baby belonging to a colleague you are living on another planet and unable to be reached with merely human technology such as the internet. (The diversity and quality of this programme is remarkable- check it out!).
Whilst there are many possibilities as to how an apartment could be penetrated by an object and then burn ferociously in a warzone- the fact that it was not flattened is irrelevant as to determining whether this was an IDF strike. Missiles come in all sizes and purposes- as do other types of munitions. The IDF has more experience than most of having to carry out targeted strikes in urban areas where it may wish to have a smaller guided payload weapons to limit collateral damage- such as the those carried on a drone. Likewise a shell -(which does not contain high explosive such as a smoke round) could arrive unguided to the wrong location, penetrate a weak structure then burn with considerable ferocity without being described as an actual incendiary device. (I haven’t seen comment on the use of actual incendiary weapons this time however during cast lead WP shells were used to achieve a similar affect on the UN warehouse in Gaza at least- hence it featuring heavily in their report on that conflict.)
On the recent situation in Gaza -
Is it callously irresponsible that Hamas operates rockets or missiles sites close to civilians thereby attracting israeli fire onto those civilians? – certainly.
However – the gaza strip is a very small area under very close surveillance. Hamas intends to make its weapons – and (at least some of) its fighters difficult to track and spot in peacetime and in war- and wishes to enable such operations to be carried out quickly and with as little opportunity to prevent or observe them being carried out. As a result it is inevitable that this will mean that the weapons move closer to the urban areas where suspicious activity would be harder to detect.
Furthermore Hamas’s command and control probably becomes very rudimentary very quickly in wartime and is intended not to be reliant on any technology which can be jammed, overheard, de-crypted or fail due to long term power blackouts. This may end up degrading to the level of neighbourhood runners.
The effectiveness of the israeli blockade on even simple materials such as concrete and metal would make preparation of the sort of sophistocated tunnel complexes used by hezbollah to hide and move weapons and fighters in south lebanon impossible. (and given the level of surveillance probably impossible to conceal – and therefore pointless unless incredibly strongly constructed….as the israeli firepower is vast and gaza relatively tiny in area).
The more rural areas are presumed by both sides to be a completely free fire zone. With so little cover which will not be levelled if deemed to be even slightly relevant by the IDF – the desire to remain in the fight makes it again inevitable that Hamas will move into the built up area for pragmatic reasons again. (There is very little point in calling this cowardice. Hamas regards itself as the ’state’ in gaza and as such has a responsibility to preserve its ability to function as a military force in the event that a ground invasion occurs- where it would be far more likely to be able to exact casualties on the IDF.)
Incidently such a blockade also makes the construction of shelters for the civilian populace a complete pipe dream.
Whether you despise Hamas’s ideology or not – they are the de-facto government of gaza and have been democratically elected in the past.
It is utterly illogical to pretend this is not a war between states (in hte eyes of the combatants at least) whether the military imbalance makes the nature of the conflict into a bizarre alternate model. ie where being completely slaughtered (along with those you are supposed to have protected) becomes a ‘victory’ simply through your organisation continuing to exist in any form.
Also given the ongoing economic crisis in gaza during the blockade there are unfortunately hundreds of priorities which could come before shelters.
On the conflict in general-
I have lived long enough to have seen israel spurn enormous quantities of admiration, respect and goodwill across the world. I grew up in a world amazed by the bravery and the skill of the IDF.
This change in attitude is not due to infantile siding with the underdog. It is not due to anyone forgetting the lesson of the holocaust. It is down to talking about peace whilst continuously building settlements outwith the 67 borders. It is also about exacting collective punishment on the palestinian population as a group for their refusal to meekly accept a ridiculously miserable life in a few fragments of the country which their predecessors lived in. (Sometimes within sight of their former homes and land within the renamed towns and cities of Israel. Their cultural memory of the country which existed in those places prior to Israel is just as inconvenient as they are.)
Those who are friends of israel should understand that whilst the continuation of low level conflict alongside settlement building in the West Bank may appear a successful model to the israeli state (as the facts on the ground -within their area of control- continue to move in their favour), this is merely making it impossible for them to have any eventual overture for peace be remotely credible.
If the Palestinian people chose extremists like Hamas -that reflects on the duplicitous way that moderate leaders have been co-opted and then made ridiculous by israeli violations of previous agreements.
If zionism places the rights of jews above non jews, and this is inherent in the nature of the legal framework of the current israeli state then what palestinian leader could agree a one or two state solution which guarantees all or part of the palestinian people being left as second class citizens in perpituity?
In the name of security laws discriminating citizens by race and religion which are incompatible with the view israel holds of its own place as an honourary ‘western’ democracy are in effect.
The changes demanded to make the israeli state not a ‘zionist’ state (and meet the criteria of co-existence with Hamas and other in a two or one state settlement) are merely a recalibration back to the basic level of equal rights that are a pre-requisite for the democratic state israel proclaims itself to be.
Any such nonsense of the palestinian’s being in the grip of a death cult and seeking leadership who will lead them through fire until israel in any form is wiped off the map is nothing but drivel.
Israel now posseses the power to make peace on incredibly favourable terms.
Surely this must be better than perpetual war?
Otherwise what is the endpoint-
War in the west until the last gazan has been driven to the slums of cairo – and hamas are still raiding and rocketing from the sinai whilst becoming egypt’s hezbollah?
Or squeezing the life out of the west bank until jordan (already majority palestinian demographically) is racked by civil war due to a further influx of palestinians and ceases being neutral to become a hostile palestinian majority governed neighbour?
Surely there must be a better future than a victory (at best) requiring longer and bigger fences and israeli’s still unable to travel in the entire middle east – and at worst further sporadic bouts of conflicts with a choice of hostile neighbours.
The unconditional financial assistance from the USA underpins the israel economy, its military prowess, its research and development – releases Israel’s own tax revenue from other purposes to fund settlement (including duplicating infrastructure and the security walls).
It also affords the sponsoring of new immigrants with little or no connections to Israel who are willing to serve as settler militia to protect their new and better life. This sort of shameless policy of expansion by any means via hired economic migrants makes a fool of any palestinian politician who even suggests Israel is still interested in peace.
If the continuation of such generous assistance by the US was made conditional on a genuine pursuit of peace – this conflict could end very quickly.
As the deal which could be made now is far in advance of that which previous generations of israeli’s could ever have dreamed of- it is not unreasonable for a friend of israel to intervene in such a way.
Especially in return for its unceasing genorosity and the considerable difficulty caused to a hundred other foreign policy concerns ham-strung as the price of unequivocal support of Israel.
The flipside to this is this eventually a politician in america may effectively galvanise the american taxpayer to the inconsistency of massive aid to Israel versus the industrial regeneration, public services, improved military equipment, infrastructure which they are being told is unaffordable.
The worst thing anyone supportive of israel could do is work on the assumption that a lasting and workable peace is irrelevant as the american financial aid will be affordable in perpetuity- thereby leaving the risk to israeli security that such support may be withdrawn without suitable adjustment at a time not of israel’s choosing.
Anyhoo…that’s my tuppence worth.
Best wishes for the future.
No name bloke.
| 26 November 2012, 2:45 am |
You are right important like the rest of us. Unless you want to be more important. But you said your piece.
| 26 November 2012, 2:49 am |
I know a Jihad in Toronto. He’s known as Jim, but of course his passport has his proper name, and he loves to travel. You can imagine the hassle he gets crossing the border.
Write a comment
Friday, September 28, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Racism at HP on and on
Met officers sacked for racist comments
Although I think speech should be free – people need to be aware that what they say may have consequences. It could be argued that people can slip into racist patterns of thought or speech, but are not truly racist themselves. (This distinction is often made with reference to antisemitism.) One may wince at certain words – ‘coloured’ for example – while recognizing (if there are no further indicators of a problem) that the speaker’s intentions are quite probably benign.
But it’s a different matter when people repeatedly and unashamedly make comments which reflect disdain and dislike for those of another race. Such views may make it impossible for people to carry out their jobs properly, as was the case with Special Constable Rosanna Garofalo and WPC Joanna Sugda who were recorded making offensive comments about black people, repeatedly comparing them to monkeys. Earlier in the year another officer was sacked for telling a takeaway manager to ‘go back to your fucking country’. Bizarrely, Garofalo insisted that ‘I am not a racist and still do not believe the conversation we had to have any racist connotations.’
KEYWORDS: Racism
Comments
| 9 September 2012, 3:50 pm |
Police officers are in a special position, & like teachers should not express racist ideas, or put them into practice as part of their job.
End of.
I often reflect on how, in many cases, “racism”, an unknown crime in my childhood, is often at the very top of the list of crimes
today.
Police & social services, rarely prosecute murders/”honour killings”
when they can persuade themselves that the victim has gone back to stay with an unidentified aunt in Pakistan.
Similarly, the rape, prostitution, & possible murder of poor,
white girls has been ignored & underinvestigated for decades.
The reason is the fear of being described as “racist” for enforcing laws that apply to all other British citizens.
It follows that in many cases, human lives are seen as less important than an official being described as racist.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy etc etc.
End of.
I often reflect on how, in many cases, “racism”, an unknown crime in my childhood, is often at the very top of the list of crimes
today.
Police & social services, rarely prosecute murders/”honour killings”
when they can persuade themselves that the victim has gone back to stay with an unidentified aunt in Pakistan.
Similarly, the rape, prostitution, & possible murder of poor,
white girls has been ignored & underinvestigated for decades.
The reason is the fear of being described as “racist” for enforcing laws that apply to all other British citizens.
It follows that in many cases, human lives are seen as less important than an official being described as racist.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy etc etc.
| 9 September 2012, 3:57 pm |
Although I think speech should be free – people need to be aware that what they say may have consequences.
I am afraid this is confused thinking. If speech is free, then it must not attract penalties.
A better wording is: Speech is free within wide limits, those limits being placed where it is likely to cause physical harm (shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre) or personal fear or feelings of personal physical insecurity.
Those limits mean, of course, that racist abuse does not fall within the definition of free speech.
Criticising a religion or any political position does not cause such harm etc, and should be free in a civilised society.
A better wording is: Speech is free within wide limits, those limits being placed where it is likely to cause physical harm (shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre) or personal fear or feelings of personal physical insecurity.
Those limits mean, of course, that racist abuse does not fall within the definition of free speech.
Criticising a religion or any political position does not cause such harm etc, and should be free in a civilised society.
| 9 September 2012, 4:00 pm |
censored by you:
absolutely. Professionally prosecuting crimes committed by members of a community X can never be ‘racist’. This was invented purely to pander to members of a particular client ‘community’, to the detriment of the rule oflaw in this country, and has caused huge harm to, well, yes, ‘community cohesion’ (sorry, I really am).
absolutely. Professionally prosecuting crimes committed by members of a community X can never be ‘racist’. This was invented purely to pander to members of a particular client ‘community’, to the detriment of the rule oflaw in this country, and has caused huge harm to, well, yes, ‘community cohesion’ (sorry, I really am).
| 9 September 2012, 4:03 pm |
I think if they had been in a different line of work it wouldn’t be an issue, or such an issue. And I posted a while back in defence of this woman, who lost her job due to EDL links.
Some things need not be criminal but are not easily compatible with certain jobs. Although I have just read something claiming that what Rowan Laxton said may not have been as bad as first thought, I would much rather he had been penalised at work than through the courts.
| 9 September 2012, 4:07 pm |
I must profess my ignorance here and admit that I was unaware until recently that ‘coloured’ is verboten. Okay, it is a word I seldom use or used – and certainly not in a pejorative sense – but I only realised it was offensive when Alan Hansen was publicly hauled over the coals for using it.
Am I right in assuming the C word is off-limits because of its association with apartheid?
| 9 September 2012, 4:16 pm |
They should sack all the white ones
Of course all white people are racist
As a black man, I admit I am bound to suffer from prejudices of my own. I cannot be racist
| 9 September 2012, 4:17 pm |
Maybe Jeremy – I agree it’s all seems slightly arbitrary and confusing. It does genuinely grate on me, having said that.
| 9 September 2012, 4:23 pm |
Sarah
Some things need not be criminal but are not easily compatible with certain jobs. Although I have just read something claiming that what Rowan Laxton said may not have been as bad as first thought, I would much rather he had been penalised at work than through the courts.
I agree, this sort of thing should be a work discipline thing.
Comparing people ‘of colour’ to monkeys is not something that should be acceptable within the expected code of conduct of a police officer; even one of the plastic ’special constables’. It is however not something that should concern the criminal justice system.
| 9 September 2012, 4:30 pm |
I’m old enough to remember when “coloured” was the POLITE term to use, as opposed the the truly offensive N- and D- words
| 9 September 2012, 4:37 pm |
Am I right in assuming the C word is off-limits because of its association with apartheid?
I didn’t know it is off limits in the UK either!
It does seem as if the terms for people of colour has a sort of reverse half life, starting off benign and becoming radioactive over time.
The word is still used in SA without rancour – and by coloureds themselves. Here it specifically means people of racially mixed admixture, distinct from the other major race groups – blacks whites and indians.
There are something like 5 million coloureds in SA, they mostly speak Afrikaans as their first language and form a majority in the Cape – no doubt one reason the Western Cape is the non ANC province! They may be sub-divided into various sub groups. Indeed, most SA Muslims ancestry hails back to imported Malay slaves.
| 9 September 2012, 5:01 pm |
Sarah AB,
Slightly OT, but as you have posted a couple of times on freedom of speech recently you may find this of interest.
| 9 September 2012, 5:04 pm |
Garofalo insisted that ‘I am not a racist and still do not believe the conversation we had to have any racist connotations.
She’s wrong about “not having racist connotations” but can she claim not to be a racist?
I honestly believe that people can have racist thoughts in their head, can say things about different races to each other and yet put their life on the line to save a member of the race they abuse in private.
I know people who have racial prejudices in their stereotypical beliefs that shows itself in conversation but not in actual prejudice in face-to-face.
Jews will tell you that they have worked with people who have made stereotypical remarks about Jews openly in conversation but the same work colleague has absolutely no prejudice against you in the workplace. You won’t be held back for promotion or be the first out of the door for the sack.
We know that the Black community will use the “N” word amongst themselves. Are they racist?
If speaking about racial characteristics and using stereotypical, denigrating phrases about other races becomes racism that is actionable in law then a huge number of people are in trouble.
Of course racism needs to be stamped out but its a tricky path to try and negotiate.
Of course racism needs to be stamped out but its a tricky path to try and negotiate.
I note a story today of a ginger haired woman taking offence that a bank clerk said “Aren’t you pleased your daughter doesn’t have ginger hair”. The woman wants an apology for “racism” and as much dosh she can wrangle out of the bank.
| 9 September 2012, 5:20 pm |
“Maybe Jeremy – I agree it’s all seems slightly arbitrary and confusing.”
Thank you, Sarah. That is very reassuring. I was somewhat bemused by the Hansen story when it broke; I felt like a cultural ignoramus and a bit of a fogey and while I may be both, I am pretty sure you are neither.
In the case of these two Specials, I wouldn’t particularly want to know them, but I am a little troubled that a private conversation should wind up in the public domain and the national newspapers.
I know plenty of people – including members of my own family – who are less-than-discreet in their views but I wouldn’t want them to be exposed in this way. Yes, these two are Met officers and are held to high standards but, even so, they are entitled to privacy.
The officers in question should have been disciplined and re-trained rather than exposed to national scrutiny and effectively stigmatised for life.
| 9 September 2012, 5:28 pm |
We know that the Black community will use the “N” word amongst themselves. Are they racist?
Those that do use the term are being pig-ignorant and, despite claims to be “reappropriating” the term, I just see them perpetuating a term that is better consigned to history.
It is just a “hip” way, as I see it from the outside, to be racist in an inverted way, i.e. “We are n****s, because we still live in a slaveowner culture that either does not help us to integrate, or that we don’t want to integrate into, unless it is strictly on our own terms.” Which sort of sticks a spanner into the integration machine, if those who need to be integrated and made to feel a part of one bigger society insist on having the mentality that continues the oppression, only by oppressing themselves.
I regard with similar contempt the efforts of “radical” gay people to talk about “queer politics” and other such “isn’t victimhood and self-hatred chic,now we have taken the language of the oppressor and use it to identify ourselves?” bullcrap.
Mind you, I also have contempt for the cuddly touchy-feely all-inclusive term “LGBT”, considering how much animosity there has traditionally been between trannies and gay men, Hackney 1980s political lesbians who (in many cases, but certainly not in the majority) openly hated all men, including gay men, and the mistrust and resentments between bisexuals and gay men.
So maybe I am part of the problem, because I cannot abide separatism, but I also abhor artificially created PC notions of forced inclusivity….
| 9 September 2012, 5:38 pm |
‘Police & social services, rarely prosecute murders/”honour killings”…
Similarly, the rape, prostitution, & possible murder of poor,
white girls has been ignored & underinvestigated for decades.’
Similarly, the rape, prostitution, & possible murder of poor,
white girls has been ignored & underinvestigated for decades.’
Absolute hogwash.
| 9 September 2012, 5:40 pm |
andrew – thanks – that’s very interesting – will try to post later.
Jeremy – maybe your solution is better – I am not sure. Perhaps one needs to know more about the whole context, although I agree that it is tough to lose your job over a private conversation. But it would also be tough to find yourself being black, and having to deal with one of those women in their professional capacity …
| 9 September 2012, 5:43 pm |
“DocMartyn
9 September 2012, 4:16 pm
They should sack all the white ones
Of course all white people are racist
As a black man, I admit I am bound to suffer from prejudices of my own. I cannot be racist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk.comment”
9 September 2012, 4:16 pm
They should sack all the white ones
Of course all white people are racist
As a black man, I admit I am bound to suffer from prejudices of my own. I cannot be racist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk.comment”
When I read this one I laughed so hard I almost weed.
Break it down.
All (ethnic group) are (single defining characteristic.)
Such self awareness!
| 9 September 2012, 6:13 pm |
Gosh, it’s all jolly difficult, isn’t it? I mean, just last night on the moving television pictures, that Jonathan Thingy had that Cheryl Whatnot on. Her new man is the splendid Will.I.Am who did so welli in the Olympic Torch race, and I said – quite innocently I assure you – That girl, I said, That girl really likes black men; but not black women. Well, The looks I got!
I rather lamely spluttered, Well, it’s true, isn’t it , but this cut no ice, I assure you. I didn’t have the temerity to ask the assembled company if they knew how someone with a criminal conviction for racially aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm can move so freely in and out of the USA when that country is famously keen on excluding criminals. Oh, well, them as lives longest will see most, as my Aunty Lila used to say. Cheers!
I rather lamely spluttered, Well, it’s true, isn’t it , but this cut no ice, I assure you. I didn’t have the temerity to ask the assembled company if they knew how someone with a criminal conviction for racially aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm can move so freely in and out of the USA when that country is famously keen on excluding criminals. Oh, well, them as lives longest will see most, as my Aunty Lila used to say. Cheers!
| 9 September 2012, 6:14 pm |
Ah Joseph Harker, professional race stirrer and whiner who I believe wrote an article about not being able to get a Mothers Day card with a black woman on it…for his white mother.
Also famous round FF Towers for whining at length about the removal of child benefit from the likes of Guardian editors and other wealthy middle class people in an article in which he whimpered “it costs my children £125 to go to school in term time” – the sums showed this amounted to 50p per kid per day.
The man is a joke.
| 9 September 2012, 6:25 pm |
Sorry – it was “£240 per term” – just found the article
| 9 September 2012, 6:27 pm |
What about referring to a “typical white person” as racist on that basis? Should such a person be judged unfit for public office, or at least for a law enforcement supervisor position?
| 9 September 2012, 6:30 pm |
A police officer making racist remarks on the job especially to members of the public certainly deserves firing.
The remarks by these two women do seem pretty nasty but I’m divided about use of stuff from private conversations as a basis for sackings. Probably it was bad enough to count against them, but I don’t like the thought of a work culture of sneaking on people for private remarks, recording chats etc…It’s likely to get round to much more marginal remarks than in these cases.
Anyway, if that’s the situation now the career of my favourite police detective in modern British tec fiction would clearly be for the chop, immediately, and with respect to thousands of racist remarks in a long career. I refer to Reg Hill’s Inspector Dalziel.
| 9 September 2012, 6:44 pm |
I agree with Sarka on this one – I find the use of what people assumed were private chats in this way to be faintly sinister. And I think people can say racist things without necessarily being racist i.e. in the context of a private joke. Not saying that this is what these people were doing, of course.
| 9 September 2012, 7:13 pm |
Just two quick points – the two police in question – they hardly sound very British themselves. I wonder if they were ever told to “fuck off back to their own fucking country”?
Otherwise “Special Constables” aren’t proper police officers anyway, are they? At least a decade ago it used to mean “do-gooding busybody volunteer” who gets a free uniform and the right to go around playing at being a policeman/woman, with a large number of the rights that real officers have, bizarrely. Like “police support officers” but with a baton and the right to arrest.
| 9 September 2012, 7:15 pm |
We need a book called ‘things not to say’ probably better published by lefties and liberals as most of them talk shite. Then we can have expert guidance and toe their line. Things like ‘dock that nigger a days pay for laying down on the job’ should be banned!
| 9 September 2012, 7:20 pm |
We need a book called ‘things not to say’
and subtitled “The collected thoughts of jimmy glesga”.
| 9 September 2012, 7:36 pm |
if i were a programmer i would device a firefox addon to make all of mr. glesga’s “thoughts” vanish from my computer screen. it wouldn’t be difficult.
| 9 September 2012, 7:57 pm |
True Story. I work in the US (but am english by birth). I do a lot of computer programming where there is a long tradition of using ‘color’ to mean adding additional properties to something (look up ‘colored pointers’ ) where these additional properties are signified by colors.
Recently I and my boss had this great idea of having ‘Colored Blah’ (Blah is some kind of class whose type is not relevant). We introduced this in a couple of meetings – the concept was fine but a couple of people took us aside afterwards and said the name needed to be changed. Other people (in the US) were wincing whenever we used said ‘Colored Blah’. Rather than face endless conversations having to explain what we meant we changed the name to ‘Annotated Blah’.
| 9 September 2012, 8:07 pm |
Hey, banned old guy, how about resisting the urge to indulge in whataboutery?
| 9 September 2012, 8:41 pm |
Why should we wince at the term coloured?
If it was good enough for Martin Luther King,it should be an acceptable term to use.
It’s now considered less than polite nowadays and we are now told by the guardians of our morals that black is more acceptable.I remember when black was unacceptable.
So rather than tie ourselves up in knots, common sense tells us that the context in which something is said and it’s intent is more important.
Who knows,perhaps in the future the N word may be an acceptable expression,heaven forbid.
| 9 September 2012, 8:42 pm |
violet;
I don’t think that’s whataboutery. It bears directly on what is racist speech, and whether it should disqualify someone for public office. I am interested in whether this is a general principle or is dependent on the race and/or political orientation of the people involved. That is, the principle “it’s a different matter when people repeatedly and unashamedly make comments which reflect disdain and dislike for those of another race”.
stuartm;
I had better watch myself because as a code slinger myself I use “color” in precisely the same way.
| 9 September 2012, 9:05 pm |
Absolutely, Jimmy, well said.
I agree that private conversations should not be used this way.
Welcome to Big Brother Britain – this is a government’s wet dream.
| 9 September 2012, 9:09 pm |
Banned Old Guy,
No whataboutery whatsoever. It seems to be regarded as OK to slag off white people (especially if working class: they are the scum of the earth, after all, to Guardian-reading so-called ‘liberals’ (LOL), all the more so if they dare vote other than Labour), in a way that would land you in hot water if non-whites were involved.
| 9 September 2012, 9:12 pm |
Never mind “coloured”, are we allowed to say “WPc”?
~alec
| 9 September 2012, 9:17 pm |
Koyla. That is a good idea you could do a foreward for me like ‘aye fuck aff jimmy’.
| 9 September 2012, 9:18 pm |
Welcome to Big Brother Britain – this is a government’s wet dream.
A leftist’s wet dream.
| 9 September 2012, 9:32 pm |
jimmy glesga
I don’t really want to talk with your because … well, do you realise that almost everything you say here is just one racist moan after another, and that the only people here who regularly agree with you are more verbose and more aggressive apostles of the same hateful message?
I’m not saying you should be banned, but like daggi said, I wish there was an option in my browser to switch you off.
Of course, if you found something to say that was not a racist moan, I might switch you back on again. On a trial basis.
| 9 September 2012, 9:47 pm |
Sacked. Benefits withdrawn. Children banned from school.Shunned by neighbours. Switched off from all browsers. Thus perish all racists.
| 10 September 2012, 12:35 am |
Koyla. Actually I do not realise what is in your heid. And I am not a moaner. I am not looking for agreement just putting over an opinion and a bit of humour to offend people.
| 10 September 2012, 7:42 am |
“The N word” – ugh. Just say it: “nigger”. It’s disgusting and foul, but the prissy tiptoeing around it as if it were a grenade is just silly. It makes it seem like it’s The Worst Word Ever when in fact it’s just a word with only the power we choose to give it and also a word used liberally in certain kinds of music.
And yes, I know all the arguments about why black people can use it and white people can’t, but not to use it even in quoted speech is ridiculous.
| 10 September 2012, 10:14 am |
Using the term ”coloured” in Britain has nothing to do with South Africa and what are called Coloureds there.
In Britain it was closer to ”people of colour”, although it wasn’t that either.
In Britain it was closer to ”people of colour”, although it wasn’t that either.
Now a leading spokesman in black politics suggests that maybe it’s time to leave ”black” behind too, and refer instead to people of African origin.
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/it-time-ditch-colour-black-our-true-heritage-african
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/it-time-ditch-colour-black-our-true-heritage-african
That’s Simon Woolley; who has stated in the past that in his opinion, a majority of non-black people in Britain, think that black people are inferior.
Which if was a widely held view amongst black people, would be quite problematic.
It may be true though.
Which if was a widely held view amongst black people, would be quite problematic.
It may be true though.
As for the wpcs in this case: they got caught, but it was terribly sneaky. Britain has now become totally PC as far as things said about race is concerned. A BNP councillor just got convicted for ”racist blogging”.
| 10 September 2012, 11:55 am |
There is something daft about a situation whereby the terms used to describe groups that are subject to disparagement keep on becoming contaminated with connotations of bigotry and have to be replaced every few years.
How about we adopt a system of dated terminology, for example this year the legitimate term for “black” people would be “black-12″, and next year “black-13″. That way we could all stay ahead of the bigotry-connotation tsunami that is alway lapping at our heels.
| 10 September 2012, 12:12 pm |
Ponios sounds nice. Persons of Non – Indiginous Origin.
| 10 September 2012, 1:05 pm |
I struggle to understand how some words are offensive, and others aren’t, despite meaning the same thing. I guess the history of the word might have some influence. But why, say, is cunt a horrendous swear word but vagina isn’t? What makes Paki offensive, when it’s just a contraction of Pakistani? Ditto Yid (cf Yiddish). Clearly I’m too much of a literalist.
| 10 September 2012, 1:07 pm |
people of African origin.
That’s the entire human race then
| 10 September 2012, 1:36 pm |
Nice one Jimmy G.
I like your pithy contributions,I’ve yet to see you write anything racist.
Maybe Kolya is playng a race card and you are then required to shut up.
He has been rather nasty to you on more than one occassion.
I think he needs a hug from you. x
| 10 September 2012, 1:45 pm |
Jimmy, pay no attention to the ever pompous and self-important (and sometimes racist) Kolya. You provide good value, if when I disagree with you.
| 10 September 2012, 1:47 pm |
I think he needs a hug from you. x
Thanks for caring. But no thanks.
| 10 September 2012, 2:36 pm |
What’s disturbing is to what extent even relatively sophisticated people like Sarah AB display in their writing their acceptance of the principle, postulate, propostion what have you, which essentially comes down to “Racism is the worst prejudice in the world” or “Racism trumps all other ism’s in its awfulness. There are numerous parameters along which humans differ, which are not susceptible to change: age, sex, attractiveness, height, blood group, personality, your parents’ class and so on. They all in theory qualify for the formation of -isms.
It’s simply that the supposed iconic dreadfulness of racism has been assiduously cultivated by those who have the power and motivation to do so, aided and abetted by inertia, cowardice, ignorance, stupidity, herd instinct, inability to think critically, wish for a quiet life and various other properties commonplace in most of the populace – including me.
The amount of suffering, disadvantage and unhappiness caused by “racism” is miniscule compared to the colossal amount due, for example, to ageism. Putting the age of 50 into a job application guarantees rejection. Putting black for your ethnic origin implies no such guarantee. You can say numerous pejorative things about old people without even being noticed. You won’t get a post on Harry’s Place or any other leftish-inclined blogs about ageism, that’s for sure.
This belief in the dreadful pre-eminence of racism, is chiefly a generational thing, secondary to indoctrination in school and by the modern mass media.
It’s simply that the supposed iconic dreadfulness of racism has been assiduously cultivated by those who have the power and motivation to do so, aided and abetted by inertia, cowardice, ignorance, stupidity, herd instinct, inability to think critically, wish for a quiet life and various other properties commonplace in most of the populace – including me.
The amount of suffering, disadvantage and unhappiness caused by “racism” is miniscule compared to the colossal amount due, for example, to ageism. Putting the age of 50 into a job application guarantees rejection. Putting black for your ethnic origin implies no such guarantee. You can say numerous pejorative things about old people without even being noticed. You won’t get a post on Harry’s Place or any other leftish-inclined blogs about ageism, that’s for sure.
This belief in the dreadful pre-eminence of racism, is chiefly a generational thing, secondary to indoctrination in school and by the modern mass media.
Write a comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
