This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

I never claimed Galloway was guilty. Why you feel you need to insinuate that I did is beyond me. I just stated that he refused to answer an important question regarding the oil for food programme. If he is innocent as you claim; a simple "I do not know" would have sufficed. However, he repeatedly dodged the question. What does that tell you about his honesty?

Further, you ignored my point about Galloway and Rumsfeld. Galloway lied then, why should we believe him now? If he is willing to lie in front of a formal legal hearing whilst spouting politics, what message does that send about him?

I never claimed there was not a massive swing in the vote in Bethnal Green. I stated that it was an error to call the election a 'landslide' as was claimed in another post. You have still not answered that point. How can you call a very tight election, a landslide?

Add up the figures you provided in the websites you linked in.

Israel 2.56bn (I stated 3bn USD, thus I was much closer than your single billion)
Egypt 1.835bn (I had guesstimated previously 2bn) So not too far off again.

Jordan alone receives 250m USD plus another 185m USD in military aid. The other muslim states are not completely listed so it is difficult to tell. But when you consider Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkey, and Yemen all receive American money then I do not think my assertion that Muslim states get more than Israel is likely to be drastically wrong. Perhaps the figures only balance out, or Israel is slightly ahead. So what? Muslim states in the Middle East and elsewhere, receive huge amounts of aid from the west as do christian and jewish states. What point are you trying to make? If you wish to strongly assert that Israel gets more money, I am happy to concede, as the argument is largely irrelevant.

According to the figures you provided, most of Israel money is not military spending. Check the figures you provided, because you put forward an untruth to further your point.

You make a point about Israel, I have never tried to deny they get money so why you feel that is important, I do not know.

Why do you ignore the new money, I mentioned, put forward by America and the G8 3.25bn USD?

You have still not answered my point about the hundreds of millions given to the Palestinian authority that vanished into private bank accounts. That is an issue that does need to be addressed. Yet you have ignored it.

Neither have you backed up your assertion that most attacks occurred against American targets. This is the second clear untruth you have used to further your arguments. Either properly challenge the validity of something, as you tried to do with the figures you provided, acknowledge that you were incorrect or concede.

I have stated more than once, that the war in Iraq did increase the likelihood of attacks, but was not the sole reason for their occurrance. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating yourself, when it is clear that you have been answered. I assume that there is little else to your argument.

Motivation. You tell me. They frequently change their demands. It started out as the removal of western influence from Sadi Arabia. This was an issue in the 70's and 80's. Often Al-Qaida affiliates cliam to want the total destruction of the west and have carried out attacks on many western and other peoples. Sometimes they try and localise an argument. Who knows, it is all political grandstanding to try to provide the illegitimate with legitimacy.

Answer this: How can a British person with all the democratic rights therein genuinely claim that murdering innocent British civilians in London is just, because of a war in a far off land that happens to involve some co-religionists? Surely, if they genuinely felt sympathy they could have voted or gone to Iraq and killed the so-called oppressors. Instead, and this is consistent with all Al-Quaida affiliates, they choose to target innocent civilians because they are ideologically and morally bankrupt.

Edited by NickinOX (15 Jul 2005 11:41pm)

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

Perhaps you have only received a reply from one person because you do not address most of the points raised in argument with you?

How am I on the warpath? And I do wish you would actually answer some of the questions I have posed, as I attempt to do with your posts rather than try to provoke a response; re your comments about reborn, pete and HMHS.

According to the BBC, it is no longer correct that America has the largest Jewish poplulation, it is now Israel. A great deal of the money is spent on security, but they would not need to spend that much if Palestinians were not regularly blowing themselves up on buses full of schoolchildren. The same could be said for the other side. This is not a one side is good the other bad situation, however much you seem to want it to be.

Your points about money were irrelevant until you actually bothered to explain why you thought the money issue was relevant. Just blurting out numbers or ideas without putting them into any kind of context is a waste of time. So why bother?

Why is the money issue out of kilter? Why should America not give money to whom it wishes, and in amounts it wants to? France, Britain, Germany etc. etc., all give out varying degrees of aid. France gives hundreds of millions to Chad and Algeria and much less to their neighbours (mostly for arms sales and training). Why, because of the unstable security situation there which has largely been caused by external factors. Much like in Israel (where the amount of money given to the Israeli and Arab protagonists was drawn up and agreed by all sides in the late 1970's in the Peace accords). Thus I ask again, if all sides agreed to this (which they did), why do you think it is a problem?

The Palestinians did not have their state annexed as you indicate. They have never had an independent state, so how could it have been annexed? The people of that region were subjugated by the Ottoman empire for 5-600 years, and before that they were dominated by the Byzantines and Romans before them. They have not been even close to being independent since the tribes of Israel were in charge of the place about 2700 years ago. The West Bank was taken over from Jordan, not Palestine and the Golan heights were annexed from Syria. The Gaza strip was part of Egypt and has never been annexed (as far as I am aware, though I am by no means certain).

Edited by NickinOX (16 Jul 2005 5:17pm)

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

Perhaps I was too harsh. However, what I mainly criticised him for was his use statistics where he had provided the web addresses and still got the numbers wrong.

That's why I normally write 3m USD.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

I would have to agree that Israel too needs to compromise. However, under the Dayton Peace plan drawn up with Clinton and Barak Israel offered the Palestinians almost everything that they had asked for. It was completely rejected by Arafat. What more should Israel do?

With Abbas in charge I do see hope, but only if he can reign in the militants. Even the BBC has been talking about the latest round of violence being started by Hamas, who spent several days firing rockets into Israel before there was an Israeli response. Now that is almost unheard of, especially when talking about Sharon.

Regarding Israel's legitimacy; it is accepted in the UN. Even Abbas acepts its legitimacy to exist. Anyway, almost all states were formed as the result of political violence of some sort, Israel is no different.

Yes it is propped up with subsidies, as is the Palestinian pseudo state. However, much of that money comes from the peace agreement signed with Egypt as a reward to both sides for keeping the peace between them.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

I find it a shame Slug that an intelligent fellow like yourself can't just come back and post on a wide variety of topics instead of limiting yourself to having a pop at few of your old enemies or trying to bait them.

Why ask to be banned? Why not come back and post across a broad spectrum of topics? How about a bit of silliness on Silly Talk or if our mortgages can stand it a return of Slug's Betting Tips?

It just seems a waste to me.

Anyway best of luck to you - hope to see you at the Palace one day.

Edited by Moose (19 Jul 2005 9:59am)

You fed me, you bred me, I'll remember your name.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'London Blasts Aftermath...' by Moose

I thought the reason was that the other main parties were fighting the introduction of new terrorism laws -- up 'til the bombings happened. Now they are supporting change.

Hardly TB's fault.

Tightening border controls has some effect. But with many citizens of other countries able to enter England as tourists and then disappear ---- there is little you can do to stop that.

I heard recently there are up to 1 million "illegals" in the UK.
So if your 280,000 failed asylum seekers is true -- I'd be just as concerned about the other 720,000 living in the UK without "papers." I'm not just talking about terrorism here. These people are also a drain/burden on the country's infrastructure.

This is an area where sophisticated ID cards (DNA/fingerprints etc) would help identify the illegals. If it was impossible to get a job or housing without having your ID verified -- it would make it much less attractive for many of the illegals to stay in the UK.

Sounds drastic. But it is a major problem in many countries and is likely to grow -- if governments don't look for solutions.

R.I.P. DJ Hardline -- Gone Way Too Soon

GKAS Member 54