In the news

I killed someone with a book.

Apologies for the Daily Fail link.

Billie Piper hits a cyclist... or the cyclist hit her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714260/Billie-Piper-quizzed-police-pulls-crash-puts-cyclist-16-hospital.html

*The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet *

ah.... the well known preventer of shit driving, the cycle helmet, was not being used, case closed your honour...... FFS!

Apologies for the Daily Fail link.

Billie Piper hits a cyclist... or the cyclist hit her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714260/Billie-Piper-quizzed-police-pulls-crash-puts-cyclist-16-hospital.html

Doing a U-Turn on a steep hill. Doesn't give way to cyclist.

Of course he should be wearing a helmet then, it all makes sense.

The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet

Again and again journos are guilty of this victim blaming crap,

(Would they also report a rape in that manner -A woman, who not wearing a baggy onesie, was raped)

Wot no chastity pants?

Again and again journos are guilty of this victim blaming crap,

(Would they also report a rape in that manner -A woman, who not wearing a baggy onesie, was raped)

This is the Mail we're talking about, so yes, probably.

Wot no chastity pants?

Yes you're right, the analogy works better with these

Didn't notice this, posted it in Rider Down, soz. Very odd reporting anyhow.

Not absurd, I'm referring to the Balfour Declaration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The Balfour declaration did not lay the foundation for the establishment of the State of Israel but for British claims to take a Mandate over Palestine to create a Jewish state (see San Remo Conference of 1920) following the defeat of the Ottomans and the final collapse of the Empire. The declaration itself was founded in clear antisemitism in that it 1) assumed that Jews within the Central powers and in non-allied countries would be prepared to be disloyal to their countries and support the British ambitions to world domination 2) Assumed a kind of Protocol of the Edlers of Zion/Illuminati picture of Jews, e.g. that Jews controlled the US government (a view later deployed by the Germans against the UK during WW-II using the term "JOG" or Jewish Occupied Government, the precusor of today's ZOG conspiracy). The UK, if there was any intent beyond getting some Jewish support for their war effort, was to encourage suspicion of Jewish alliances within the Central Powers. While Chaim Weizmann was head of the British Admiralty's laboratories, Fritz Haber developed both Mustard gas and masks to shield soldiers. After the war many Germans blamed Jews for both defeat and the revolutions--- indeed most of the German revolutionary leaders were Jewish.
To keep things also in historical prespective.. The British once they got control of the Mandate did everything they could to protect their increasing oil interests--- which were increasingly in competition against the US for contracts. In WW-II the British government went as far as to block trades for Jews from concentration camps so as not to "interfer with British interests in the Middle East".
The British, as the Americans, were more interested in oil. The true motor behind the establishment of Israel was the USSR and it was part of the East-West conflict that led both to back the establishment of Israel--- both felt, anyway, that Israel would not survive 2 weeks. The main miliitary backer of Israel for the first two decades was France while the US and GB backed Egypt (Nasser himself was a graduate from the Royal Military Accademy) .

The english would have gone on the crusades with or without christianity

Part of the crusades were economically motivated as it gave the peasant masses a license to plunder Jewish towns and murder Jews. The German-Rheine setttlements were completely, for example, destroyed. While in England King Stefan did help protect the Jews, English crusaders were free to join in the plundering on the continent.

They might not have chosen to head off to Jerusalem though. It was considered to be the duty of christians to protect this city for whatever reason. If you can believe that, then the plundering was just an added benefit. If religion played no part whatsoever, it would probably be easier to plunder somewhere a bit nearer.

They, in fact, did! But it was not without "religion". Jews. Rhineland, Saxoxy, Bohemia,.....

last time i checked, soldiers in combat zones can't be 'kidnapped'. taken prisoner, yes.

HAMAS does not "take" POWs but hostages. They do not honour the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention.

Edward, you've got to ask yourself if a weekend spent cobbling together some shite no one will read from Wikipedia and the David Icke forums is a weekend well spent.

israel bomb another un refugee centre
the 2nd un centre in a week

Again and again journos are guilty of this victim blaming crap,

(Would they also report a rape in that manner -A woman, who not wearing a baggy onesie, was raped)

Defintely since for some reason, rape aren't treated seriously.

HAMAS does not "take" POWs but hostages. They do not honour the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention.

Kind of like Israel and the Forth Geneva Convention.

And, although I'm not a international law scholar, I suspect bombing UN schools is probably some sort of crime.

Is EdwardZ one of these people paid to support Israel online? I'm suspecting this is the case more and more.

Then who is paying him to be an equally condescending bore when he talks about bikes? BikeRadar?

Those ones are free. We're so lucky!

It was by seeing his potential in those posts that he was chosen for recruiting.

Then who is paying him to be an equally condescending bore when he talks about bikes? BikeRadar?

Fuck it, can't believe I wasted a rep point on your other lame joke when I could have given you one for this instead. Every rep counts right now as we approach the endgame.

I'll do it.

Pointless rep delivered.

Neither side seem particularly concerned about the Geneva Convention when they take prisoners (although of course both sides should) so that's a bit of a moot point. My concern is how media outlets who so far seemed relatively even handed somehow lost that impartiality when Goldin was captured/arrested/kidnapped.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.607185
Israel holding unknown number of Palestinians captured in Gaza Strip
The IDF gave no information about those still in custody or where they are being held. The Shin Bet security service is interrogating about 20 of the prisoners, who are denied access to lawyers. ....
The law authorizes the chief of staff to order a person’s indefinite imprisonment if he has “reasonable cause to believe that a person being held by the state authorities is an unlawful combatant and that his release will harm state security.”

Neither side seem particularly concerned about the Geneva Convention

Wrong. One must clearly distinguish between "unlawful combatants" and "uniformed soldiers". The later are entitled to the protection of the IVth while the former are not. HAMAS troups don't wear uniforms so as to blur the lines between combatant and civilian. The "International Committee of the Red Cross manuals state that civilians who take a direct part in hostilities forfeit their immunity from attack". For clarification:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_dorman.pdf
HAMAS launches rockets from schools and mosques--- the UNRWA has painfully been forced to admit that many of their schools are being used by HAMAS for military activities-- uses Red Crescent ambulances to transport troups... and has even been known to don women's clothing as camouflage... Arab civilian casualties are part of their deviant calculation just as firing rockets at civilians with a clear intent to harm--- while I wrote this a number of rockets were fired.

Wrong. One must clearly distinguish between "unlawful combatants" and "uniformed soldiers". The later are entitled to the protection of the IVth while the former are not. HAMAS troups don't wear uniforms so as to blur the lines between combatant and civilian. The "International Committee of the Red Cross manuals state that civilians who take a direct part in hostilities forfeit their immunity from attack". For clarification:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_dorman.pdf
HAMAS launches rockets from schools and mosques--- the UNRWA has painfully been forced to admit that many of their schools are being used by HAMAS for military activities-- uses Red Crescent ambulances to transport troups... and has even been known to don women's clothing as camouflage... Arab civilian casualties are part of their deviant calculation just as firing rockets at civilians with a clear intent to harm--- while I wrote this a number of rockets were fired.
Wrong.

The IDF pretty makes up their own mind as to what constitutes a lawful combatant, associating anybody they attack as being a combatant, irrespective of their lack of connection with any ongoing hostilities.

Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm.

Like children, schools, hospitals etc...

That's entirely in breach of the Geneva Convention. For clarification: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_dorman.pdf

Oh, wait - was that the article that you just egregiously misquoted? Ooops.

Do one, you condescending prick.