Tom Paulin is annoying. This is not in question.
However, the people who believe his comments on Israeli settlers are as racist against Jews as Robert Kilroy-Silk’s comments are against Arabs are either missing an obvious point, or deliberately ignoring it because it suits their political goals.
Robert Kilroy-Silk was sacked because he said that Arabs (in a context that implied Arabs in general, not specific Arabs) celebrated September 11, enjoyed chopping off people’s hands, and had never done anything of any worth to the world as a whole.
Tom Paulin claims that a specific group of Israelis – those who choose to live in land that he believes to be under illegal occupation – deserve to be shot. Under Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, where a power temporarily occupies land in the course of wartime, it is a war crime to move settlers from the occupying power onto the land.
While it’s debatable whether Article 49 applies in the Israel/Palestine context, it is not an extreme position to hold that it does. Nor is it a particularly extreme position to hold that war criminals should be shot.
For some reason, many people on the right seem incapable of appreciating the moral difference between a statement of contempt directed at an ethnic group based on the actions of some of that ethnic group’s members, and a statement of hatred directed at specific individuals based on their criminal behaviour.
It’s also strange that the people who are most in favour of one having an unfettered right to shoot anyone dead who merely enters your property against your will are the most critical of Paulin for expressing similar views with respect to the occupied territories. I obviously don’t agree with either view, and think them both abhorrent.
3 to 4 times as many people have been killed under Nato occupation in Kosovo than, in the same period, by Iraelis. All by people we have armed & provided police uniforms to. If it is ok to suggest that Israeli settlers are war criminals who deserve to be shot then British politicians, officers & possibly even ordinary soldiers are war criminals whom it is a positive duty to shoot.
I suspect if Kilroy’s replacement were to get up on TV & call for the assassination of Tony Blair he would not keep his job.
Bollocks. The NATO troops in Kosovo and their masters aren’t breaking Article 49, because they’re an occupying military force rather than being permanent settlers.
Have I got this right?
On one hand we have Paulin calling for the cold blooded and pre-meditated murder of identified innocent civilians living in ‘what he believes’ to be illegal land to which Article 49 may or may not apply.
On the other Kilroy expressed distaste at some of the actions of some Arabs.(it was you that implied it was Arabs in general not Kilroy)
And it is Kilroy’s remarks that you find most offensive?
Are you insane?
If the situation is as he sees it, they’re not innocent civilians, they’re war criminals.
And the natural interpretation of Kilroy’s article as printed in the Express (the most recent time) was that it referred to all Arabs. I admit this could be taken as a sign of his ineptitude as a writer and the Express’s ineptitude as a newspaper, rather than his hatred of Arabs. This would be a somewhat charitable way to take it.
I think it is pertinant to point out that Paulin also said
in the same interview for al-Ahram:
"I can understand how suicide bombers feel. . . . I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale."
He also compared the settlers to Nazis.
These remarks are incredibly offensive and ignorant
Ref: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross111202.asp
Paulin is correct.
Read the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud
Down with snobby bullying thugs.
It is immoral to fancy bullies
http://www.netwebresearch.com/servicesview
I am fed up with evil snobby bullying thugs that support bullies and thugs.
Women and men who bully or support or fancy bullies are evil.
I dont need to be lectured to by some abusive thug.
By the way I am not posting this message to be given advice or insults i am giving an opinion.
I would fint it deeply unhelpful and hurtful to be patrnoised, insulted, mocked, sneered at, dissmissed, or treated like scum by some abusive thug for making these remarks.
Bygt the way if you disagree with my view then it menas you are a dangerous dangerous monsertous bullyingt thug. Why is it my message will get ssuch a offensive reaction
I am not a bully or a serila killer, or a rapist, or child abuser
Yet for making these anti abuse remakrs some dangerous thug will give me some immoral indgination reactions.
I will be given immoral indignation for making thse remakrs.
Byt the way if you read up to here why woul;d you still call it bioring.
Also dont make some snide dissmisive remakr about my work. This not a rant.
These are prpfopund deep views.
It is the bullies who rant and it doesn’t matter if you give a one word reply it is still a rant.
Listen you are dangerous if you are scared by these comments. You are dangerous not the voice of commnon sense. Dont think that you speak for everyone.
Tom Paulin is a snide bully. I hate Tom Paulin. Once when he reviweed four weddings and a funeral he dissmissed the film saying snidely and with hate that he did not care about men who live on their own. Also he once complimented Mike Tyson a convited rapist on his poetry recitals. Tom Paulin is a bully supporte. Tom Pualin is evil scum.
This is a copy of an e-mail i sent on the subject of two evil snobby bullying evil elitist snide thugs Tom Pualin and Andrew O’Hagan. Why does your paper employ and listen to snide bullying thugs like Tom Paulin and Andrew O’Hagan. They are bullying thugs the sort who would join the NAZIs in the thirties. They are snobby elitist bullying thugs. Both are literally psychopaths and have commented on wanting the deaths of people they don’t like for no reason. Paulin wants Jews in Israel murdered, he also hates shy qiet men who live on their own. I think i will be like that when i grow up, so fuck off to Pualin. . . While O’Hagan wants all shy men who live on their own to kill themselves because the snobby evil thug O’Hagan thinks if he hates people then they should surely carry out the punishment on themselves, as punishment for O’hagans psychotic mindset. O’Hagan and Paulin are psychotic evil elitist snobby scum. Dont give me any immoral indignation crap of some psychotic thug getting angry that i would be upset about some evil thug wanting people like me to die. I know some scum bags are so psychopthaic that they don’t even think it right for me to get angry when i hear of scum who want people like me to die.
Up with http://www.netwebresearch.com/servicesview
Down with evil bullying thugs who htink their the voice of common sense. Down with thugs.
Defensive comments.
I am not on thos board for advice or to be inslulted by some evil snide snobby abusive scum bag i am hear to give an opinion. It is not my fault that there are some shitheads so derrnaged that when they hear anti abuse view they get angry and start spouiting out crap. And don’t tell me some crap that my words are a rant, or boring, or insane.
The fact is my views are profound and if you disagree with me your a dangerous evil shitherad who toloarates and supports abuse, you htink people like me should be emotional punch bags for evil scum.
Tom Paulin is scum.
Tony McRush (if that is your real name) is a freak. He writes wit hno control is a punctuation psychopath and thug.
Freak.