BBC Blog Network

User Profile

1OUTTA27

Listed below are comments made by 1OUTTA27 between Tuesday, 10th June 2008 and Friday, 24th April 2009.

«Newer
Older»

EU split over racism conference 4:48pm on 24 Apr 2009 @SKY_USA

"In any country you have to pledge allegiance to this country before join Arm Force."

Someone else used the example of Israel's exemption of Palestinians from military service as proof of its benign treatment of Palestinians. It was a bogus point, as Israel doesn't want to train and arm Palestinians, for obvious reasons. My rebuttal stands.

"You mistaken "Non-Jews" with Non-Israel citizen. "Non-Jews" & Jews have the same rights as long as they are citizens with few exceptions. One of 'few exceptions' is ban on military service."

I made no mistake. You simply ignored my specification of Israel's behaviour as that taking place in "the lands it controls". That land extends beyond Israel into the lands supposedly earmarked (by Israel's perpetual supporters in the west) as providing the basis for a "viable" Palestinian state. You know, the lands of the future Greater Israel. The whole point is that Israel is happy to expand its territory without extending democratic, legal and human rights to non-Jews in the newly conquered territory. Jewish settlers in the newly conquered lands get full citizenship, full protection, full democratic rights, free Arab land, full access to water resources, the right to carry arms etc. What do non-Jews in those territories get? Tell me what non-Jews in the West Bank get that equates to Israel's treatment of Jews there. Jews get it all, and non-Jews can go to hell. In the real world, where people don't mince language into lies and obfuscation, that's called racism. Israel is a racist state, where bloodline dictates everything, from birth to death.

"In most democratic countries you have these 'few exceptions' for some groups based on race/origin/sex. In US native-American have some exceptional benefits or immigrants ban from becoming President etc."

"In US native-Americans have some exceptional benefits". HAHAHAHAHAHA! Very funny. I'm sure they're delighted that they can open casinos on their little reservations, a delight that they would have missed out on if the nice white Europeans hadn't kindly took their lands, subjugated them, and ethnically-cleansed them from any lands the white man covetted.

"Palestinian Arabs who are not Israel citizens still have right to bring matters before Israel judges."

Is that why Jews can take the land of non-Jews and build nice cities and towns on it? The right to "bring matters before Israeli Judges" hasn't done the non-Jews much good, has it. Bogus point. Another one in a long line.

"Settlements.
In Democratic countries including Israel polices are driven by public opinion that may not fit into international law. In Israel public supports settlement that obviously cause lots of tentions with the rest of the World. Settlement activities decreased compare to era of Sharon's 'Grab hilltops'. With exceptions to few big settlements most of them are future bargain chips with Palestinians."

So, Israelis want to expand their territory at the expense of other people? That's just fine and dandy then. If Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians, they can just go ahead. Any claim that settlement is decreasing is a lie, as is the claim that Israel is just seizing land and building cities and towns to use as bargaining chips when it feels like it in the future. You know that, don't you.

"You can point 1000's Israel faults but you missing bigger picture."

Israel is a racist state, which treats non-Jews in the lands it controls in an entirely different manner to how it treats Jews. That's a pretty big picture.

@EnjoyingLifeInUSA

"Arabs imported the blood liebel from Europeans and now Europeans respond in kind, I guess."

Yaaaaaawwwwwn! Yeah, yeah, I'm obviously anti-semitic, just because I don't put Israel on a pedestal. You clearly didn't read my post, because I pointed out the moral cowardice of the EU in its craven support for Israel's continuing expansion into lands that the EU waffles about as being for a future Palestinian state.

"It is sad that the month two young Jewish settlers were killed at their home (including a three year old), you come up again with the myth of Israel's killing stone-throwing kids."

No myth. You know it, no matter how much you're enjoying life in the USA. Israel has killed hundreds, yes hundreds, of Palestinian children on the West Bank. I'm not even talking about Gaza, just the WB, where many non-Jewish children have been shot dead by snipers, who were looking down their crosshairs at their targets. Think of the disgusting T-shirts celebrating the murder of innocent non-Jews by IDF personnel in Gaza recently. The IDF obviously contains some very sick people, and some of them have killed young stone-throwers on the WB.

"You buy very easily into Arab propaganda, but I guess it makes sense when that's where European media gets its cues from."

I know Israelis are very happy to receive preferential access to EU markets, happy to play their football as a European state, happy to receive the backing of EU states as happened at the conference which is at the centre of this discussion. However, if one European calls Israel to account for its moral transgressions against a people without a state, then BANG, suddenly Europe is the big, bad blood-libelling wolf.
EU split over racism conference 12:54pm on 23 Apr 2009 @DEANTHETORY #90

Am I given to understand that the Israeli Supreme Court's order to the Israeli government to "redirect portions of its wall" proves that there are equal rights for all who live in territories controlled by Israel? You'll have to do better than that.

Your other evidence of Israel's equal treatment of Jew and non-Jew alike is that non-Jews are not compelled to engage in military service. From the kindness and understanding of the Israeli heart no doubt. I presume there's no chance that the Jewish state simply wouldn't wish to provide weapons and training to those who have no allegiance, for some strange reason, to that state.

The fact that you weasel out of dealing with my specific assertions re the ongoing Israeli conquest of Arab lands by using such weak examples speaks volumes about the vacuity of your argument.

@IKAMASKEIP #98

I'm sure DEANTHETORY is moved by your support.

You ask me to "please provide evidence" to back up my assertions re what I see as the massive gulf between the separate approaches the Israeli state takes to Jews and non-Jews who live in the territories it controls. I have already done so in post #17. You have chosen to ignore it, q'elle surprise.

Let me restate my points, which remain ignored by the Israel-right-or-wrong mob.

"Non-jews in the territories controlled by Israel simply do not have democratic, human or legal rights equal to those enjoyed by Jews in those territories.

Non-jews may have their lands confiscated at the slash of an Israeli pen, and Jews from Australia, the UK, the USA or anywhere in the world can then move to the confiscated land to build permanent cities and towns exlusively for Jews, diverting water supplies from centuries-old non-Jewish communities to their swimming-pools. If non-Jews protest with stones against their displacement, they are liable to be shot, age providing no protection. This is in stark contrast to the kid-glove treatment Jewish settlers enjoy when they rampage against non-Jews on the West Bank.

That there is one law for the Jews in the areas controlled by Israel and another law for non-Jews is an incontrovertible fact. Israel is a state where bloodline dictates all."

Now, if you'd like to deal with those points........
EU split over racism conference 1:44pm on 21 Apr 2009 Why have Israel's supporters here ignored my post #17. Are the issue's too difficult to handle?

I've no time for Iran's fundamentalist rulers, but Israel observes one set of laws for Jews in the territories it controls, and a markedly different set of laws for non-Jews.

In Israel, bloodline dicatates all. Fact.
EU split over racism conference 5:02pm on 20 Apr 2009 Bravo to the UK and France (on this matter) for resisting the temptation to line up with the likes of the laughable Berlusconi, a politician who himself has had absolutely no problem associating with far-right Italian politicians who harbour a sneaking regard for their Black-shirt forebears, and who wear their racism openly. What matters to him is not that they're racist, but that they've mutated into pro-Israeli right-wingers. We'll take no lectures on racism from the likes of Berlusconi.

Non-jews in the territories controlled by Israel simply do not have democratic, human or legal rights equal to those enjoyed by Jews in those territories.

Non-jews may have their lands confiscated at the slash of an Israeli pen, and Jews from Australia, the UK, the USA or anywhere in the world can then move to the confiscated land to build permanent cities and towns exlusively for Jews, diverting water supplies from centuries-old non-Jewish communities to their swimming-pools. If non-Jews protest with stones against their displacement, they are liable to be shot, age providing no protection. This is in stark contrast to the kid-glove treatment Jewish settlers enjoy when they rampage against non-Jews on the West Bank.

That there is one law for the Jews in the areas controlled by Israel and another law for non-Jews is an incontrovertible fact. Israel is a state where bloodline dictates all.

Powerful liars and moral cowards enter into paroxysms when this fact is addressed. It is to their deep disgrace that this is so, and it's unfortunate that foreign policy seldom impacts on election results, particularly in Europe, because many citizens of EU states are profoundly unhappy with their governments' perpetual providing of moral blank-cheques to be cashed by Israel at the expense of the prostrate non-Jewish populations of the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon.

As for EU policy on the middle east, that is also disgraceful. While parrotting weasle-words about a "two-state" solution, and in the context of ongoing and undiminished Israeli confiscation of the lands supposedly earmarked for a Palestinian state, the EU has rewarded Israel with unrivalled trade access to the lucrative markets of the EU, in effect rewarding Israel for giving the "international community" the big finger for decades.

Jimmy Carter was accurate in his description of EU middle east polciy as "supine" and "embarrassing". He could have added that, given our self-lauded central role in the creation of the concept of human rights, our support for Israeli subjugation of a near-defenceless people represents craven moral cowardice of the lowest order.

BTW, please don't come back to me with Holocaust-based justifications for pretending Israel does not have policies based on ethnicity. We are discussing the issue of Israel's current policies towards non-Jews in the territories it controls, and whether or not those policies justify Israel's inclusion in any debate on the fight against racism.
Lisbon charm offensive 12:45pm on 04 Dec 2008 A few things are clear:

1. Despite the clear NO in the referendum, this treaty will be put to the Irish electorate again.

2. If we thought there was an onslaught against the NO campaign last time round by the body politic, the business establishment, and their friends in the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and, more subtly, RTE, then we're going to have to think again. This will be a bloodbath. Libertas and Sinn Fein are going to be battered like never before. This will be a hate-fest of biblical proportions. And boy, we Irish do hate-fests well, especially when our betters require our assistance to maintain their positions of power.

3. The result will be the stampeding of a sufficient proportion of the electorate from the NO to the YES side to ensure victory for the latter.

4. The reputation of the Irish political establishment will regardless remain in tatters. As usual, that won't matter. We'll still vote for some collection of centre-right non-entities. We like our politicians to mirror ourselves i.e. not very coherent, but with an eye for the main chance and for little else.

5. The understanding within the EU's smaller states that there's a level playing field within the putative super-state will be shown up as a mere delusion of grandeur.

6. The word of the EU's oligarchs i.e. that "all state's must ratify the treaty before its adoption" will have been shown to be worthless following their displays of contempt for the Irish electorate in the first instance.

7. The concept of rule by the "educated" elites of the EU without the consent of their present electorates will have gained currency within those elites.

8. Democratic processes in the EU will be significantly diminished from their already weakened states.

And the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to enhance democracy in the EU?

The EU's Commissioners and the political and business elites within the EU states have formulated this treaty on the basis of sustaining the catastrophic fiscal and societal policies which are unravelling before our eyes. These evangelists for globalisation are determined to force through, without the express consent of the peoples of the EU, a treaty which will copperfasten the streamlining of the very measures which have led us to the brink of economic, social and environmental catastrophe.

And we, the people of the EU, are being led, like the sheep we're proving to be, along this path of proven failure.
French in the hot seat 4:05pm on 01 Jul 2008 Mark,

clarification appreciated. Apology accepted, and allow me to apologise for my initial tart retort. It's strange how our new would-be oligarchs in Ireland and the rest of the EU can provoke a red mist to descend, such a state resulting from one's democratic voice being suppressed or ignored.

@geraldmu comment #4

Am I given to understand that we elect our politicians to enact subsequently any laws or constitutional amendments that they see fit, without any reference to we mere serfs who elected them to do as they please? Silly me, I thought the idea was for them to represent the interests of those who voted for them in the first place.

Surely choosing the individuals and parties most competent to run our societies and economies is a complex process. Perhaps the dumbing down of politics into personality and beauty contests has been encouraged to help us make our decisions without thinking too much.

If a lack of in-depth knowledge of Lisbon voids one's democratic right to vote on it, surely the circuses of advertising and smear tactics which pass for electoral politcs in much of the developed world scarcely provide our 'leaders' with mandates to ratify, over our heads, far-reaching treaties such as Lisbon.

I must ask this of you and your anti-democratic bedfellows who have emerged from the woodwork since Ireland's rejection of Lisbon: just who exactly is equipped sufficiently, in your humble opinion, to vote in general elections, the results of which are arguably as significant as those of referenda on EU matters?

Are you and your ilk taking the first steps on the path to official disenfranchisement of the masses, those who, in the case of the Irish public, are obviously too dull to vote in accord with the wishes of the business and political elites across the EU.

A great many of my acquaintances have begun to think the unthinkable: we are facing into a new era in European history in which people are no longer equal in the voting booth, with the richer, more powerful and so-called better educated citizens seeking a greater democratic advantage over the serfs, an advantage even greater than that which they currently enjoy, with their ability to patronise the political classes.

It's time the people of the UK and the rest of the EU woke from their slumbers. They are currently sleepwalking into a 'sweet dictatorship' by the oligarchs within the politcal elites of the EU.

We are not sheep, and we can bite. We should endeavour to do so, as soon and as hard as we can, throughout the EU.

Viva Europe, and viva democratic equality.
Irish No under scrutiny 4:03pm on 25 Jun 2008 @Russelyates2

“To continue ahead with the Treaty is correct.

You cannot stop because one group of people rejected the Treaty on the basis of unfounded and irrational fears.

The fact that 52% of No voters voted No because they didn?t understand the Treaty says it all. You cannot stop because people couldn?t be bothered to read it and chose instead to listen to scaremongerers and business leaders who have an interest in protecting their own profits and newspaper editors who sell fear on a daily basis.”

Mr Yates, what planet do you inhabit? At least, what country?

You cannot be from Ireland, as your ignorance of the issues and the role of the media in the pre-referendum campaign is simply breathtaking (ironic, in light of your reference to people who “couldn’t be bothered to read it”).

Why did NO voters reject the treaty? The EU Commission carried out a survey shortly after the vote which sought to explain the reasons for a NO vote. Obviously the results must be taken with a pinch of salt, as those being surveyed were asked to choose from a range of options provided by the canvassers i.e. representatives of the EU itself. The main findings about the NO camp were:

22% voted NO because they felt they didn’t know enough about the treaty to give it their approval (BTW Mr Mardell, where did you get the 52%, was it gleaned from your “Irish colleague” perchance, the colleague who fed you the rubbish about phone-ins?).

12% wanted to protect Irish identity.

6% to protect Irish neutrality (I’m aware that Ireland’s provision of pitstops to US troops at Shannon shreds our neutrality).

6% because they don’t trust our politicians (surprisingly low, IMHO).

6% to retain a full time commissioner.

6% to protect our tax system.

5% against a unified Europe.

4% to protest against the government’s policies.

4% to avoid the EU speaking with one voice on global issues.

4% because large states dictate on EU matters.

3% to protect the influence of small states.

2% (THIS MUST BE NOTED by those in denial of the result), only 2% mentioned EU legislation on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage.

1% (NOTE) to avoid an influx of immigrants.

1% because the EU doesn’t need fixing.

14% another reason (those provided by the canvassers not covering all bases).

3% didn’t wish to respond.

Item 1, the 22% who felt they didn’t understand the treaty: those on the YES side had better realise that this does not attest to an intellectual inability to read text or an unwillingness to do so. At a major press conference in the lead-up to the vote, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission, a High Court judge no less, was asked to explain a particular section of the treaty. After an embarrassing 4 minute silence, during which he tried to formalise a reply, he admitted that he simply could not offer an explanation of the text.

The text is deliberately devoid of clarity, so as to enable groups as diverse as Big Business and Europe’s Green parties, employers organisations and trades unions, to argue the case for Lisbon. They cannot all be correct, and, if history shows us anything, it is that the Rich and Powerful rarely fail to identifiy the path to greater wealth and privelege. If people smell a rat as a result of this, they should not be castigated for failing to read the entire document. Furthermore, 51% of the YES vote came from people who felt that it was in the best interests of Ireland, or that Ireland had benefitted from the EU, hardly an indication that they’d deeply explored the document themselves.

Lay off on the accusations of ignorance. Others in the YES camp should ditch the bogus references to the scaremongering of the catholic fascists of Coir, as they represent nobody but themselves, 50 maniacs with 3 gorilla suits and a big banner (1% of NO voters doing so on an anti-abortion/euthanasia ticket). Lay off with your accusations of anti-Lisbon scaremongering by Irish newspaper editors, evidence of which I ask you for a single instance. Quit whingeing about business leaders who were likewise spreading scare stories, as one could count them on one hand.

It’s time for the losers to grow up and face the real reasons for the NO vote. People smelled a rat, didn’t like being bullied by our ‘leaders’, by the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, RTE (more subtly, of course), didn’t like being bullied by Eurocrats, didn’t like MEPs voting recently to keep secret their expenses (at our expense, of course), didn’t like the lies so helpfully alluded to by Giscard d’Estaing, didn’t want an EU superstate to continue to kiss US butt a la EU support for US policies in the middle east etc etc etc.

We simply don’t trust our political elites, at home or in the EU. Why, because they refuse to trust us, evidenced by their refusal (Ireland excepted) to ask us for our permission to enact this deliberately misleading treaty. We don’t want to give our democratic voices to them, forever. I’d encourage our true friends in Europe to safeguard their own democratic voices, gained in many cases at great human cost.

Get off your backsides, and make your voices heard, before it’s too late.

Long live Europe, and long live democracy.
Irish PM: 'No' would kill Lisbon 3:17pm on 10 Jun 2008 @fionavroom,

If, as you assert, Ireland is still in receipt of the enormous subsidies of yore, please explain why the YES campaign and the EU have not reminded us of this as the vote draws near.

Please.

Ireland has been a capitalist's wet-dream for at least 15 years.

How about:

(1) Massive tax-breaks for the rich and for investors in property.

(2) The running down of the state health system in favour of a US-style privately funded system for over half of the population (BTW, where did you get the idea that capitalism equates to great state healthcare?).

(3) Massive expansion of the road network at the expense of investment in public transport.

(4) As for unemployment, it's one of the lowest levels in the EU despite recent increases. A little unemployment ain't such a bad thing for capitalists in the long run i.e. paring wages back even further.

(5) As for the fall in house prices, I'd suggest the rise over the past 15 years has been obscene in scale, though perhaps your historical view extends all the way back to.....2007.

(6) A fantastically low corporate tax-rate designed to attract the capitalists of the world to Irish shores.

If Ireland hasn't been a capitalist's wet dream, why have they flocked to our shores.

Your understanding of what capitalists want seems on the upside of naive.

Now, back to the Lisbon Treaty.......
Irish PM: 'No' would kill Lisbon 2:34pm on 10 Jun 2008 @jon_toronto

Hello jon. Wake up. You've been asleep for a long time. It's 2008, and quite a while since Ireland received enormous subsidies from the EU.

Why? Because, in the past, and as one of the EU's poorest states, we received enormous subsidies from Brussels, and used them to transform the state into a capitalist's wet dream, in the process removing the need for the subsidies.

If you've nothing to contribute to the 21st century I'd suggest you go back to sleep.
Irish PM: 'No' would kill Lisbon 2:11pm on 10 Jun 2008 @DanInCork

You're voting yes because "the EU has been good for Ireland".

Is that a blank cheque or what?

The EU has had many very positive benefits for Ireland. Why, in that case, do you want to create a new type of EU if you're so happy with the workings of the one we already have?

I'm mystified.

Is it the case that your "the EU has been good for Ireland" argument justifies voting for anything at all that our 'betters' in Europe want us to accept? What hypothetical proposals would, for you, make void the utterly simplistic argument that we must vote yes because "the EU has been good for Ireland".

As for the fatuous remark re Sinn Fein's private army (the army without weapons), surely one can be neutral while armed to the teeth i.e. Sweden and Switzerland (Ireland's neutrality is bogus - pitstops for US troops en route to Iraq etc).

Do you have a view on the statements by some of the EUs leading lights about how they must hide the true intentions contained within Lisbon. In case you're uninformed and haven't heard about it, just check Giscard D'Estaing contempt for us all -

"Public opinion will be led -- without knowing it -- to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden or disguised in some ways."

And D'Estaing isn't alone, check Baroso and Sarkozy too.

Isn't democracy, EU-style, a wonderful thing?

You've a problem with "all the lies" of the NO campaign, the examples of which you provide come from COIR, the miniscule far-right catholic fundamentalist group who don't even go forward for election.

Any views on the lies and obfuscation of those in the YES camp as they try to hoodwink 500m citizens of Europe?

Wake up and smell the coffee!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

1OUTTA27