The tone of the topics (this and the one above for example) make this an increasingly cold talk-board for nationalists. If it's just going to be a unionist propaganda site then you are welcome to it.

If we can't all start discussions then they should be introduced in an objective manner and let us all have our say on an equal basis.

I intend, and I call on others, to post only on topics that are objectively introduced.

A boycott? How quaint!

Which offends you more Henry, that PIRA9 has been jailed or that MM wasn't jailed ?

Three months, after all the money spent on this silly little squalid nationalist gurn-pot i personally would have hanged him

Damn another new year resolution broken,

i promised not to be so lenient this year

I think Henry has a point.

Slugger has built a reputation for objectiveness (deserved or otherwise) over the years. Whilst we've had a spread of political opinion amongst the guest bloggers, then I have been more than happy for individuals to blog through the focal point of their own political biases.

However, we've not been able to get a Republican blogger to replace Mark - who for entirely practical reasons is unable to blog as much as he would have liked.

It seems a shame to 'punish' a unionist for sake of not being able to trace a new republican blogger. So, I suppose I'm faced with a choice: exclude any blogger with an obvious political bias; or recruit another one or two republican/nationalist bloggers to the Slugger team.

I'm open to suggestions.

Just think you can get rid of all those rifles with their dangerous forensic history and not even get so much as a stern letter from Lord Saville.

Mick, if people like Henry are so concerned, why aren't they sending you things that they would like blogged ? And a second point. If Slugger appears uncomfortable for republicans, it merely is reflecting the reality of NI at the present... and to a great extent it is that reflection of reality for which slugger is appreciated. Stories come and go. Is anything equivalent to the robbery that refelcts badly on the Unionist side of the fence being ignored at the moment ? No. We can only discuss what is happening. Republicans are trumpetting their anniversary, we are discussing that. The Bank robbery- we are discussing that.
Do we really want quotas, or to have something like happened when a certain prominent newspaper was reduced to running a story on Water quality rather than report the discovery of Jean McConville's body ?

I don't agree with quotas, but there is a clear deficit in terms of nationalist input to the blog part of the site.

I don't want engage in minimalising. Slugger should be engaged in providing added quality rather reducing everything to a miserly quantitative bottom line.

Henry is perfectly entitled to decide to read and comment on, what he feels is appropriate. But he's also put his finger on an absence from the blog output.

Now, I'd like to see it filled.

Just think you can get rid of all those rifles with their dangerous forensic history and not even get so much as a stern letter from Lord Saville.

I agree Pat. It's a mess. PIRA9 should not have been jailed.

Here's a suggestion- why not ask each mainstream party to nominate a blogger and allow them an official spokesperson ?

I don't think that I am breaking any confidences by revealing that I have was invited by Mick to submit pieces for discussion.
I declined because, believe it or not, I was too busy with work etc. However i'll be off to Philly for a wedding for a week or two soon and when I return I will be happy to keep the Alliance flag flying.

:-)

That's good news Pat, can you bring me back some duty free fegs ?

Mick

BY all means invite someone to take Mark's place. But don't confuse criticism of SF with evidence of a 'deficit in terms of nationalist input'. The two are not the same. And that it is that criticism that Henry is complaining about, depite his appropriation of other more general terms.

Not that long ago, Slugger was being accused of being pro-SF, and it still is by some. The current criticism is a direct result of the current, and likely continuing, focus on the Northern Bank heist and it's political fall-out.

That focus of the blog shifts over time and it would a distortion of events to attempt, too readily, to 'fix' it.

To put it simply - I don't see the need for party-affiliated bloggers following a party line, they do have websites of their own, you know.

Pete

"I don't see the need for party-affiliated bloggers"

That I agree with. I've myself resisted the temptation to mould the site according to the wishes of readers. But I do want more politico bloggers. It's just not easy to find them!

I remember when Andrew McCann was here he accused Slugger of being 'republican'. Now republicans are accusing it of being unionist.

We must be doing something right(!)

More seriously, I agree with Mick - there is a big gap. I come here to have my views challenged, not reinforced. But an invitation has been made to Pat (and probably others), and Mick had that open invitation on the front page last year.

Unless someone responds to the challenge, what more can be done?

I haven't gone away you know. Hopefully I'll have enough time to rejoin the ship in a month or two.

I must say I don't really see the problem. The background of each blogger is known, no one is trying to kid anyone. Certainly there was an overwhelmingly and specifically 'republican' 'bias' on here once upon a time, but it did no harm. The wheel turns, it'll turn again.

Boycotts, for the record, have never worked in the history of NI and they'll not work here!

I think Henry himself would make an excellent replacement, that said!

Last comment before siesta: underlying problem ?

Republicans like to dish it out but cannot take it .

Republicans like to dish it out but cannot take it

Are we still on about the money?

Welcome back, Henry.

Of course we all know who Henry94 is, don't we sluggipooes?

sluggipooes?

LOL!

well, it's a Friday!

I bet that's really just the wife's soppy pet name for you!

:o)

Right, enough!

D:Republicans like to dish it out but cannot take it

Are we still on about the money?

LOL, nice comeback Henry !

Is Henry94 Henry Kelly from 'classicfm' and 'It's a Knockout'?

hmm. that sould have been 'Going for Gold'. Nevermind

I must admit I don’t find slugger anti-republican. One of the great things about slugger is the ability to engage with people you otherwise would not engage with.

cg

That's what it's all about. Course, none of us are really objective, so you'll forgive us our little foibles...!

None of us can be objective as I informed willowfield of in another thread ;)

Christopher

Of course we all know who Henry94 is, don't we sluggipooes?

No, you don't. You might think you do but what you think you know can be wrong. I have been confused with a SF councillor from Belfast but I'm not him and I have never met him.

cg

My only point was in relation to the way topics were introduced from a particular perspective. I'm happy with Mick's explanation regarding balance but from any perspective I think the introduction should not form part of the debate.

Henry, what are your thoughts on the treatment of PIRA9?

Henry94

Agreed
I accept what you say about the introductions but Republicans have always been attacked by Unionists and stoops, you have to expect it.

cg, what are your thoughts on the treatment of PIRA9?

cg, what are your thoughts on the treatment of PIRA9?

"cg, what are your thoughts on the treatment of PIRA9?"

Davros please forgive my ignorance (studying) but who are PIRA9?

I don't know whoo the PIRA9 are either.

See the blog entry at the top of the thread - IRA man who won't give evidence to Saville who isn't Martin McGuinness.

You guys got so hung up on Ambrose's lousy joke you never read his post ? Click the link. This Thread is supposed to be about Saville scapegoating a Derry man.

Please pardon this entry as my anger has been boiled.

It's a Fucking disgrace; I wonder will any paras be jailed for the murder of innocent protesters.

Some how I doubt it and Brian Kerr is involved now why doesn't that surprise me. British justice has never been up to much but this is pathetic.

Hmmm.. perhaps Henry and cg should start reading the introductions?

The problem is you get distracted by the bullshit at the start and because of that you just start attacking that instead of discussing the thread.

I'd suggest anger management courses then, cg ;)

Well that goes to prove my point about the the introduction.

On the issue I think everybody should cooperate with the tribunal. I hope some way can be found to get this person out of jail as soon as possible by him finding a way of making his point in a manner acceptable to the tribunal.

"I'd suggest anger management courses then, cg ;)"

I have tried them and they don't work.

Ambrose I don't appreciate you amending my posts

Cut and paste it into mine, A.U., I don't mind :)

Thanks Pete- and it wasn't even an amendment, it was an addition. A.U.

apologies to all for any offence given, totally misjudged the title which was supposed to be mocking the focus on the non-event of Hugh Orde only saying after all what was expected while this man has been given what I consider to be an unjust jail sentence. A.U.

Sorry to be childish Ambrose I didn't read it properly. I really must read things before I go on a tantrum.

Not a problem cg, It's a mess I created, I deserve to wear a hair shirt for a while ! A.U.

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, A.U., the criticism being voiced by certain posters was based on the flawed accusation of a wider bias than simply your posts.

cg
"Please pardon this entry as my anger has been boiled.

It's a Fucking disgrace; I wonder will any paras be jailed for the murder of innocent protesters."

As a former native of the maiden city actually present on the day -the facts are as follows(as I have said before )

1 The natives stood for hours hurled abuse tins of shit piss bricks bottles iron bars etc at the army.

2 The army got pissed of and called in the paras (all young men) who went buck mad and bloody sunday ensued.

3 "innocent" protestors were thin on the ground ,the event had all the appearances of an orchestrated riot

Please explain why "innocent protestors" invariably smashed in (amongst others)Littlewoods windows and looted the shop. I cannot understand why PIRA does not give evidence if only to refute the claims of PIRA involvement

Barnshee,
"police were forced to open fire on a crowd of people estimated at between 3,000 and 4,000." The crowd was "armed with stones, sticks, petrol bombs and bricks." It was not until the crowd "was about five metres from the police" that "the commanding officer fired a warning shot into the ground next to the leader." But this shot had no effect and the crowd surrounded the police, who were "pelted with stones, sticks and other missiles, including petrol bombs."

Sound familiar?
The quotes are those of Louis Le Grange, the Minister of Law and Order in South Africa following the Sharpeville Massacre.

The Bloody Sunday protestors were innocent of the charge laid at them, namely that they fired on the army.

I didn't see the paras quelling the poll tax or miners riots with automatic gunfire.

I don't believe someone guilty of smashing windows or throwing rocks or even petrol bombs at the forces of law and order deserves to be shot dead.

Those who do are generally people of the calibre of Le Grange living in a country with the morality of apartheid South Africa.

I didn't see the paras quelling the poll tax or miners riots with automatic gunfire.

I think Bloody Sunday shames the British Army.
However George your above is a nonsense. How many policemen were shot to death during the Poll Tax or Miners Riots ? The IRA have admitted that they had armed men at Bloody Sunday. How many at the Poll tax and Miner's Protests/riots were armed ?

That post is a shameful manipulation Davros.

Getting back to Bloody Sunday, however deplorable rioting may be, the death penalty is not the proscribed response.

Calling the actions a shame, and then proceeding to whataboutery is manipulation.

If the Saville inquiry prooves, as surely it must, that paratroopers lied to the original inquiry, then i presume that these men will receive a similar sentence with regards to contempt, that is of course if perjury is not a more appropriate charge.

"That post is a shameful manipulation Davros."

My Post or George's post Shay ?

Getting back to Bloody Sunday, however deplorable rioting may be, the death penalty is not the proscribed response.

I agree.

Calling the actions a shame, and then proceeding to whataboutery is manipulation.

I didn't call the actions "a shame". You need to think more carefully about what I write.

The whataboutery was in trying to equate Bloody Sunday with Poll tax riots.

Why contempt and perjury, surely murder is a more appropriate charge, after all some here seem to be justifying the death penalty for rioting ?

Personally I am against the death penalty (point).

If perjury and contempt stand, then murder is the charge.

Your "post" Davros.

Your "post" not you Davros.

Read it again from the viewpoint of the relative of an innocent victim on that day.

Shay, don't get carried away. How can a squaddy who lied about what he saw somebody else do be guilty of Murder ?

I was dealing with the issue of deceiving tribunals, ShayPaul. buit you are, of course, correct in your assertion.

Shay , I was addressing a specific and utterly wrong point made by George. "Relatives" are neither here nor there and are an attempt to distort the debate.
George was playing a MOPE card. Bloody Sunday cannot be compared in any way with riots over poll tax and the miners strike.

"The whataboutery was in trying to equate Bloody Sunday with Poll tax riots."

Sorry I do not agree, George (it seems to me) was trying to underline the unjustified use of force facing a public protest, by using a comparison.

Your oblique reference, whilst in context, is whataboutery as it justifies the unacceptable use of force by balancing it with equally unacceptable acts on the "other side".

With that type of logic we got to where we are.

"Shay, don't get carried away. How can a squaddy who lied about what he saw somebody else do be guilty of Murder ?"

Those squaddies should be charged with aiding and abetting, obstruction and the rest.

The ones that shot the victims with murder.

Is that clear enough?

Shay that's a nonsense. Sorry. The troops in bloody Sunday were in a theatre of War. The IRA had guns present. Coppers had been killed in Derry that week.
Those two facts are not in dispute. There was NOTHING like that at either the Poll Tax or Miners riots.

Those squaddies should be charged with aiding and abetting, obstruction and the rest.

Thank you for the correction. Hysteria gets us nowhere.

Davros

Hysteria ? Ball not man.

"Shay that's a nonsense. Sorry. The troops in bloody Sunday were in a theatre of War. The IRA had guns present. Coppers had been killed in Derry that week.
Those two facts are not in dispute."

Davros - how many troops were injured in this "theatre of war" whilst they where slaying innocent civilians ?

Put the sense into that non-sense.

Shay, if you don't want to debate properly, why not withdraw gracefully ? I have made the points I wanted.

I'll accept that as your graceful inclination, thank you.

May I advise less lecturing and personalised comments in future exchanges as they get in the way of the debate.

regards

Davros,
what's a MOPE and were the South African forces in a "theatre of war" in Sharpeville in your view?

What is your definition of a theatre of war?

Strikes me as though Bush/Blair could use the same "theatre of war" arguement to justify the massacre of Riaqi civilians.

George, I wasn't arguing with your Sharpeville analogy. It was nn excellent point. The poll tax and miners thing damaged a good argument.

Have I really got to explain MOPE to you ?

I meant to type Iraqi, of course.

I find it a disgrace that people on this thread are trying to almost defend the paras on that day. It was murder clear and simple.

I think this "theatre of war" stuff is nonsense.
The reason I say so is the belief that the paras didn't act on their own bat that day but by orders of higher authority. I do hope we have the chance to find the truth but by the actions taken in relation to PIRA9 It seems clear some members of the British judicial system don’t want the truth but merely want to try and blame Republicans.

Strikes me as though Bush/Blair could use the same "theatre of war" arguement to justify the massacre of Riaqi civilians.

Good Point. Certainly I have seen plenty of their supporters make that sort of point on sites like ATW
Paddy.

cg, I remember a couple of weeks ago there was a thread in which the subject of the Kingsmill massacre came up. You unreservedly condemned it, but went on to say that it was a result of nationalist anger about loyalist or security force excesses in the area. Is that right ?

If so don't you think the British Army would be entitled to the same excuse ?

I am not familiar with the term Davros.

The Para's came under fire on that day, they reacted as per their training and returned fire.

George, how about if the Paratroopers had threw petrol bombs at the rioters instead? You seem to view this as a pretty reasonable occurence which one shouldn't deserve being shot at for doing? If they had done so, you'd probably be looking at more deaths than occurred on that day!

I did not try to give an excuse and if you remember said even if that was the reason it still wasn't a good enough reason for the actions at Kingsmill.

People on this thread are trying to use similar arguments for an EXCUSE which is unacceptable.
Roger others might think you bring up Kingsmill as a way of avoiding the issue but I would never believe that ;)

Ah, I'll e mail you then George.

Share it with us Davros

Intelligence insider,
"George, how about if the Paratroopers had threw petrol bombs at the rioters instead"

We are talking about what levels of crowd violence should elicit the use of deadly force by the state not what method should be used.

If throwing petrol bombs and bricks was a capital offence, as the British seemed to believe (as long as it was Irish people holding the bottle), then we'd be having a Bloody 1st of May every year in Berlin for a start.

Do they shoot "Chaoten" as they call them? No they don't even if the demonstrators chant things like "we have brought something for you - Hate! Hate! Hate!"

Only repressive regimes shoot dead demonstrators with petrol bombs and bricks. This is murder, simple and plain.

Name me another democracy where this type of thing has happened in the last fifty years. Just one will do.

Intel inside

Please indicate the horrendous casualties suffered by the army on Bloody Sunday, number of deaths, injuries, burns?

It must have been horrific ?

Run a Google Shay.

I must admit that I already know the answer.

I must admit that I already know the answer.

I was looking over my shoulder, hence the reply.

How did you manage to throw nail bombs at the same time ?

George, Israel. A great example of a democratic country which knows exactly how to deal with terrorists. You won't agree of course as the PLO terrorists are your friends, as are ETA terrorists, FARC terrorists, etc. (Please take note all Irish-American readers)

Shay/Patrick, Who mentioned horrendous casualties? If a platoon comes under fire they are quite within their rights to return fire.

Intel inside

Please inform us of the horrific casualties that decimated the platoon and provoked them to execute unarmed civilians.

It must be a horrible list to read, but in the interest of debate as you are so well informed please share it with us.

Who said that the platoon were decimated Patrick? I stated that they came under fire, as has been admitted by the ira. The number of deaths out of the total number of rioters actually shows a great deal of restraint by the Para's.

Intelligence Insider,
I am not aware of Israel ever opening fire on its own citizens in Israel when they were demonstrating. Please tell me when they did this?

If you cant, I repeat my question. Name me one democracy.

Also Intelligence Insider,
"You won't agree of course as the PLO terrorists are your friends, as are ETA terrorists, FARC terrorists, etc. (Please take note all Irish-American readers)"

Would you mind backing up such a comment with evidence or do you usually just make things up and parade them as truth. There is word for that -lying.

I have never once in my time on Slugger made a single comment on the FARC or ETA. I would be grateful if you showed a semblance of civility and retracted that comment unreservedly. I'd like an apology too if you're man/woman enough to give it.

The consuct of the paras CANNOT be condoned,the conduct of the citizens of Derry- well what do you expect.
The idea that the "british Government" (who and what exactly) sat down and planned to kill people is risable. The military acted -the establishment swung in behind "our lads" thats it. All the rest is propaganda.

Incidentally I am sure the powers that be rue the day they failed to heed the advice of DI McGimpsey to "get out and let them burn this shite hole to the ground" Its not too late.

cg, you could have just condemned it and left it at that, but you had to bring up the "justification", even though you later added that it wasn't really a very good justification.

The whole problem about this country is that we're coming down with people who will say "well I condemn atrocity X .. BUT..". In other words, when it comes to murder and death, people feel the need to pick a side. You're one of them.

First of all Roger I don’t feel the need to pick any side and secondly don’t tell me what I am or am not. I am seriously starting to believe you are bringing up Kingsmill just to get around the issue of Paras murdering innocent protesters.

Arrogance in the extreme

BTW I never mentioned the word Justification so don't try and put words in my mouth.

cg, it's pretty obvious what you said, it's right there in the thread. You added an equivocation to your condemnation. You can't weasel out of it now.

The paras did murder innocent protestors and they need to be punished. Those who fired should be convicted of murder, those who covered up the operation should be publicly shamed for their deeds. However if the people behind Kingsmill were in jail, you'd be campaigning to have them released. That is the stark reality we need to deal with here.

I am not trying to weasel out of anything just clarifying for you my position.

You must have the influence of the almighty because you are very averse to either telling me what I am or telling me what I think.
I think it’s about time you catch a grip.

George, Israeli soldiers have quite rightly fired on demonstraters on many occasions. If you are not aware of this I apologise for your ignorance.

If I hear you condemn completely, and without equivocation, all actions of the ira, plo, eta and farc terrorists I will have no problem in retracting my previous comment.

Roger,

If any paratrooper is convicted for any action he took on "bloody sunday" I would like to think they would be covered by the early release scheme of the Good Friday Agreement and be released immediately.

Intelligence Insider

And you consider Israel a democracy LOL
I am sorry for your ignorance

cg, it's pretty obvious what you think - your opinions are completely predictable, read them here.

Insider, that wouldn't be necessary. As with Lee Clegg, the NI Secretary of State would simply overrule the Life Sentence Review Board and order his release immediately. No need to bother with talks, agreements or any of that silly nonsense.

cg - in terms of the middle east it has a better democratic history than either Turkey or Iran, the two other countries there that have something approaching democracy - more so obviusly in Turkeys case.

Of course the occupied terrotories are another matter, but in actual Isreal itself non-jewish voters - about 10% IIRC, have the same democratic rights as the other jewish voters.

Now Isreal is great example of why porportional representation is a great idea but often horrible in practise. Through PR the jewish fundementlalists - who only get around 1-5% of the votes are almost always in government and do what religious fundmentalist do the world over - make life hell for the rest of us.

In fact in a way I'm glad that the provos robbed the bank as it puts of the day that we have First Minister Paisley.

Roger
How does that link tell you what I think?

DCB
Intel spoke of a democracy. He didn't say a democracy when comparing it to its neighbors. How can a country that has flouted more UN Security Council resolutions than Iraq be considered a democracy?

"George, Israeli soldiers have quite rightly fired on demonstraters on many occasions. If you are not aware of this I apologise for your ignorance"

Intelligence Insider,
I am not aware of Israel ever firing on its own citizens, it has fired on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza but not on Israeli citizens within the state of Israel.

You are showing your ignorance of Israel here. Name me a democracy which has opened fire on demonstrators in its own country Intelligence Insider. I'm still waiting.

Please also tell me where I showed support for FARC, PLO or ETA anywhere on this forum as you claimed.

I have not so at least have the civility to apologise or at least admit you just made it up - in other words lied.

CG - the UN - now that's a laugh - how many members of the UN are demrcacies.

Democracy as in demos the people and cracy as in something else latin that I don't know but I'm sure means essentially rule by the people.

Isreal meets those basic criteria. Of course the big question is what are the people, as in where do the boundaries of the state lie. Not an easy question.

George

there's no doubt that the Isrealis can be very trigger happy.

Though it makes f all differnce in terms of Bloody Sunday and bringing it into the discussion is a shameless excersice in trying to not exactly justify BS but sort of feel better about it. As in well these things happen.

Now the republican movement on the other hand have of course never, ever resorted to such rhetorical justifications.

Sorry Geoege read your post properly and agree I doubt if its ever opened fire on its own citizins in it's own terriory

But then again if there is a parellel, Derry in the 1970s was to Britain akin to the Occupied Territories (or indeed the Occupied 6 Counties)

DCB,
it doesn't matter what distant "parallels" can be drawn, the simple fact is that Israel has never considered the West Bank or Gaza to be an integral part of its territory and the regions are not and never have been democracies in any sense of the word.

I resent someone like Intelligence insider showing disgraceful prejudice by labelling me as a "lover" of FARC, PLO and ETA just because he seems to get off on it. Maybe he is intolerant of my views because they differ from his own. There's a word for that, it's called a bigot.

If a democracy resorts to murdering demonstrators in its own jurisdiction and refuses to recognise the crime, it no longer merits the name democracy. No ifs, no buts.

The attitudes shown by many here would be the equivalent of Americans continuing to proudly condone the Ohio National Guard opening fire on rioters in Kent State University in 1970, which killed four people.

It took 20 years but Ohio Governor Richard Celeste apologised to the families of the four slain students and the nine surviving victims in 1990. The also received compensation.

This is the least the family of the Bloody Sunday victims should get.

I know of no other democracy in the world that has opened fire on its citizens and 30 years later still refuses to admit it was wrong.

cg, obviously you have no idea what democracy actually means. Flouting UN resolutions doesn't mean a country is not democratic.

George, as I've already stated, when you condemn all of their activities.........

By the way I can't seem to find Palestine on any map, where is it? If someone lives in the state of Israel they are citizens of that state and not even a pro-Israeli like me would claim that Israeli soldiers have never opened fire on demonstraters.

Intelligence Insider
You still haven’t responded to my comments against your scurrilous accusations on the other thread.
Be a man/woman and respond to my comments on that thread and retract your statement and apologise.

Intelligence Insider,
"George, as I've already stated, when you condemn all of their activities"

Are you saying I am a FARC, ETA, PLO lover because I have never proferred an opinion on them in my life?

In other words you are the type of person who gladly has a biased belief or attitude about a person formed beforehand.

This is the exact definition of prejudice. What makes me sad is that your are proud of your prejudice.

Also, please read my post. I never used the word Palestine, I said West Bank and Gaza. I never mentioned state either, I called them regions.

Israel has never in my knowledge opened fire on its own citizens. The population of Gaza and West Bank are not Israeli citizens. You say you are pro-Israel but you appear to not even know what constitutes Israel. But I forgot you form your attitudes before knowing facts.

How can I take someone like you seriously?

You can't George he/she is a Neanderthal who speaks before thinking and who doesn’t feel he/she needs proof before making allegations.

George, "it has fired on Palestinians" you stated, "I never used the word Palestine" you then say, where do these Palestinians come from? They may claim to come from Palestine but there is no such country!

"Israel has never in my knowledge opened fire on its own citizens." Do you mean to say that Israeli troops have never fired a weapon in Israel? Get with the programme you ignorant buffoon!

By the way, yes, I am saying that you are "a FARC, ETA, PLO lover" and also an ira lover. If you condemn the actions of these evil terrorists I will gladly retract that.

Intelligence insider,
"Do you mean to say that Israeli troops have never fired a weapon in Israel? Get with the programme you ignorant buffoon!"

I see you are now an abuser as well as prejudiced. Any other strings to your bow that we should know about?

I repeat, name me one instance when Israeli citizens demonstrating against anything have been shot at and killed by their own armed forces or police. You repeatedly fail to answer the question but instead resort to slurs, innuendo and insults.

"It has fired on Palestinians" you stated, "I never used the word Palestine" you then say, where do these Palestinians come from? They may claim to come from Palestine but there is no such country!"

Bully for them that they claim to come from Palestine. What has that got to do with what I posted which was "The population of Gaza and West Bank are not Israeli citizens." Please read my posts rather than answering what your prejudices would like me to write.

I used the terms Palestinians, West Bank and Gaza which are the terms used by the Israeli government.

They are not Israeli citizens. Ask any Israeli.

No "Palestinians" in the state of Israel?? Your ignorance astounds me George! I also note that you refuse to condemn the terrorists I mentioned above, not really surprising.

Firstly,
those "Palestinians" as you call them who are living in Israel and are citizens are Israeli Arabs not Palestinians. As I said you don't know much about Israel. With "friends" like you calling them Palestinians, the good people of Israel don't need enemies. Sheesh.

I said Israel has never in my knowledge opened fire on its own citizens - Arab or otherwise. The Palestinian population of West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and these areas are not in Israel.

You still refuse to answer the question and instead resort to abuse. Please answer the
question rather than slinging abuse about and please stop questioning Israel's right to exist by calling its Arab citizens Palestinians.

Last attempt:
How many Israeli citizens, Arabs or anyone else for that matter, demonstrating in the state of Israel have been shot dead by the security forces there Insider Outsider.

"You still refuse to answer the question", is that the question about you condemning terrorist activity George? The "good people of Israel" aren't Arabs or palestinian, but Israeli.

Intelligence Insider,

I'll let any Israelis reading this draw their own conclusions from you initially terming their Arab minority as Palestinians and your continued refusal to admit that the Israel security forces have never opened fire on their own citizens demonstrating in Israel.

Why did you call the Arab minority, who are called Israeli Arabs (the term I used) by the people of Israel Palestinians? Friends don't insult each other, not even prejudiced ones.

The only people who call them Palestinians are people who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. Is this another prejudice of yours that has been uncovered? After all, you have freely admitted you are a prejudiced person. You actually seem proud of it.

The evidence presented here is that you are masquerading as a friend of Israel but are the exact opposite as you see no difference between Arabs living within or without her borders and you also believe Israel has shot its own citizens when they were demonstrating in the country.

Israel neither needs nor wants self-confessed prejudiced bigots like you "on her side". As you refuse to answer the question, I see no point in continuing any further, I've some skiing to watch. Good day.

George, it was you that first mentioned palestinians, not me.

"you have freely admitted you are a prejudiced person", is that what you call someone who supports the right of Israel to exist and defend itself? If so, then it is you who is prejudiced, and indeed, nothing less than a sectarian bigot.

I have no problem in condemning the actions of the ira, plo, eta, farc. They are all terrorist scum who should not enjoy the same rights as decent people. Why is it that you DO seem to have a problem in condemning them? Is it because you are also a criminal/terrorist?

You are pushing your luck here with that last part A.U.

A.U., I am merely asking the question, not stating a fact. I hope no offence was taken as none was given.

George & Intelligence Insider.

I'm a bit late to this thread. But, if this is any help, you should be aware that the Israelis have opened fire on their own citizens.

In 1976 Israeli security forces killed six Arab citizens who were protesting about confiscation of Arab land.

In 1982 Arab citizens held demonstrations after the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Eight were shot dead by Israeli police.

Whether inquiries or prosecutions followed, I have no idea.

You should maybe also be aware that what our media call "Israeli Arabs" does include Arabs who consider themselves Palestinians, Christian as well as Muslim.

"Israeli Arab" also includes Bedouin Arabs. I don't know if anyone saw the "Death in Gaza" documentary on Channel 4 last year where British cameraman James Miller was shot dead. The Israeli soldiers who were demolishing the homes in Rafah, taunting the Palestinains and who killed Miller were Bedouin Arabs. It was an eye-opener for me anyway.