markhumphrys.com

meditraitor · 20-10-2011 12:12pm #1

MarkHumphrys.com
Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-American. Pro-Israel.

http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html

Ive seen this site for a while now and everytime I am using the search for anything about the Irish Left it is on the front page.... now obviously there is no such person as MarkHumphrys and this is a troll site but who put this together.....

Would I be right in thinking that there are financial ways to keep your site on the first page of related queries?

Or maybe I am wrong, is there such an ignoramous around somewere trolling?

simonw · 20-10-2011 12:20pm

Mark Humphrys is 100% a real person, I had him as a lecturer in the school of computing in DCU

meditraitor · 20-10-2011 9:24pm

simonw wrote: »

Mark Humphrys is 100% a real person, I had him as a lecturer in the school of computing in DCU

Are you sure that its the same guy?

simonw · 21-10-2011 12:21pm

meditraitor wrote: »

Are you sure that its the same guy?

Yep, 100%.

last section here: http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/

Nodin · 21-10-2011 12:52pm

...then who was the fellah VB chucked off his show a while back?

Sid_Justice · 21-10-2011 12:56pm

No idea about vincent brown, would love to hear the story.

Mark Humphry's is a 100% legit. He's a lecturer in DCU, he has historical links to previous irish presidents or taoisheach's i think.

He was mentioned on QI once.

meditraitor · 21-10-2011 3:13pm

Thanks for the info, I thought it was a bad attempt at a troll website but obviously it takes allsorts, I am not suprised he is a lecturer though, too much time on his hands.
There really is people like that around, gives me a warm feeling:pac:

Nodin · 21-10-2011 5:22pm

Sid_Justice wrote: »

No idea about vincent brown, would love to hear the story.

.

'Some fellah with a beard' is the best description I can give who also was (I think) described as a lecturer. The kind of fellow whose top drawer argument on the Middle East is "WHY DO YOU HATE THE JEWS?". Kept roaring crap and VB decided they'd take a break and get rid of him.

I'd previously seen him on TV3 causing a debate with Robert Fisk to descend into chaos by effectively accusing him of using the 'blood libel' against the Jews.

Sid_Justice · 22-10-2011 12:19pm

that's him there, so no beard so not him.

I don't know why people feel it's a troll website, either they don't know what the term troll means or they haven't read it.

all of his opinions are very rational and reasonable, i don't agree with him but for every extreme view he has a suite of logic to explain it.

the only think i don't understand is why he doesn't have the thing kitted out with google ads, he'd make a nice little sum based on the views he gets.

meditraitor · 22-10-2011 1:04pm

Sid_Justice wrote: »

that's him there, so no beard so not him.

I don't know why people feel it's a troll website, either they don't know what the term troll means or they haven't read it.

all of his opinions are very rational and reasonable, i don't agree with him but for every extreme view he has a suite of logic to explain it.

the only think i don't understand is why he doesn't have the thing kitted out with google ads, he'd make a nice little sum based on the views he gets.

He's a lovely chap I'm sure, knowing his sort he would get a hard on if there was any criticism of his islamaphobia/neo con and anti left tendencies.

thebman · 22-10-2011 3:00pm

I think I'd take it more seriously if it didn't look like it was an archive. Why not migrate it to a proper blog software?

The website is out of date as are his views IMO.

Sid_Justice · 22-10-2011 3:41pm

goes to show how brainwashed you are by current memes bman. The website isn't a blog therefore its content much be invalid. Real critical thinker you are, nobel laureates watch their back.

This site is topic-sorted, not date-sorted

This site is topic-sorted (like Wikipedia), not date-sorted (the blog format). The blog format has two big advantages:
It is date-sorted. So you can drop in regularly and see exactly what is new since your last visit. You can also distribute new posts via RSS and blog search engines.
External links always work, because what you are reading are always recently-created external links.
The major disadvantage of blogs is it is hard to find similar material grouped together by topic. Once it has scrolled off the front page, it tends to be gone and forgotten, like last year's newspaper articles. Compare trying to understand, say, the Israeli conflict by going through articles for 20 years in the archives of a newspaper, versus reading a book with all the important material in one place.

I prefer to build up a "book" rather than a "newspaper". So, like Wikipedia, this is more a topic-sorted library than a date-sorted blog. This site is however similar to a blog in the sense that:

A lot (but not all) of it is about current events.
It's by an individual.
It's full of annotated links.
I add links regularly as I read new stuff.
However, it's different to a blog in that:
I add the new links all over the site in different topic areas.
The Blog is as close as this site comes to the date-sorted blog format. It lists the sections I have done major work on recently. However note:

Most of these sections will contain old links too.
It omits sections I have done minor work on recently.

thebman · 24-10-2011 10:12pm

Sid_Justice wrote: »

goes to show how brainwashed you are by current memes bman. The website isn't a blog therefore its content much be invalid. Real critical thinker you are, nobel laureates watch their back.

No the website very much is a blog, just a bad one with outdated views and style that badly needs to be updated.

Sid_Justice · 24-10-2011 10:53pm

ah bman.

you obviously forget the time when people had websites and not blogs. a land that existed before facebook.

I suppose you don't appreciate the lack of flash.

thebman · 26-10-2011 8:33pm

Sid_Justice wrote: »

ah bman.

you obviously forget the time when people had websites and not blogs. a land that existed before facebook.

I suppose you don't appreciate the lack of flash.

I'm completely aware of it, it is in the past, there is a reason blogs aren't like that anymore.

Flash is dying and rightly so and has been for some time :rolleyes:

Mostly only used for ads these days.

humphrys · 21-07-2012 10:44am

I ignored this thread when it first came out, since "meditraitor" was not making an actual argument. He just seemed incredulous that anyone could have different opinions to him. This seemed too boring to engage with.

But this thread seems to have stuck around, so I thought I would say something.

The reason I am ranked high on Google is that a lot of sites link to me. They are mainly American, British and Israeli sites, though lots of others. Not all blogs either - quite a lot of international media links to me.

I am quite an international site, but I like to do certain research on Ireland since that is something I can contribute. I like to think I do the research on the Irish left that the Irish media fails to. For example:

The Irish Anti-War Movement supports Islamic terror groups:
http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html

Al Qaeda approvingly quoted Richard Boyd Barrett in their terrorist publications:
http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html#al.qaeda

Irish anti-Israel demos carry Islamic terrorist flags:
http://markhumphrys.com/free.gaza.irish.html

The Communications Co-ordinator at Amnesty Ireland is a Sinn Feiner:
http://markhumphrys.com/human.rights.groups.html#justin.moran

The Irish Times Middle East correspondent, Michael Jansen, is a female Muslim. She has been attacking Israel in their pages since 1987, and neither she nor the Irish Times ever told us she was a Muslim:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.jansen.html

Anti-Israel TD Chris Andrews posed with Bashar Assad on a constituency leaflet:
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html#chris.andrews

The Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, is the most anti-American head of state in the west. He has a long track record that the media entirely ignored:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.america.html

Michael D. Higgins is also the most anti-Israel head of state in the west. He mourned the death of Yasser Arafat, objected to Hamas being labelled terrorists, and signed up to share a platform with Hezbollah. The media ignored all this:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.israel.html

The major Islamic centres of Ireland are all linked to Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who deny religious and sexual freedom, and regularly praise Islamic terror. The Irish left and the media don't care:
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.ireland.html
http://markhumphrys.com/clonskeagh.html

I am a classic liberal, an atheist who believes in religious, sexual and political freedom, and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect. The left's support for reactionary right-wing Islamists is the main reason I have contempt for the left.

If "meditraitor" or "thebman" want to debate any of these, that would be fun. But something tells me they won't want that.

Mark

Nodin · 21-07-2012 3:44pm

humphrys wrote: »

.............

I am a classic liberal, an atheist who believes in religious, sexual and political freedom, and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect..............

Yet all but two of your links above concerns allegations regarding muslims - this in a week when we've heard that FG members intend to try and block limited abortion legislation based on the supreme court decision of 1992. Not to mention the rumours of similar problems looming with regard to gay marriage.

In addition most of the issues are quite dated. This looks more like a cry for attention than a discussion.

jonniebgood1 · 21-07-2012 5:10pm

humphrys wrote: »

....... and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect.

And how do you think that Israel should be treated.

The accusations of Irish being pro-palestinian on your website are very much one-sided. You fail to consider the important question of WHY that might be the case. If a wide section of Irish and indeed international opinion feels sympathy for one side of a conflict then it is imperative that you look at why that might be the case rather than accuse people of bias. Linking this back to something like the Limerick pogrom of over 100 years ago as 'proof' makes your argument seem lacking. The same goes for IRA support for Nazis which you mention as partial proof that Irish are anti-Israel. Absurd linkage if ever I saw it. The IRA supported the Nazi's because they were enemies of the British- a simple reading of Irish history would show this.

humphrys · 21-07-2012 7:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yet all but two of your links above concerns allegations regarding muslims - this in a week when we've heard that FG members intend to try and block limited abortion legislation based on the supreme court decision of 1992. Not to mention the rumours of similar problems looming with regard to gay marriage.

I talk about Christianity at length as well, but that's not what seems to annoy people like the original poster. A major theme of my site is the left's defence of Islamism, but it's not the only theme.

Nodin wrote: »

In addition most of the issues are quite dated. This looks more like a cry for attention than a discussion.

I don't think you understand. This thread was started by someone else about me. I ignored it for a long time, but finally decided I should say something.

humphrys · 21-07-2012 7:44pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And how do you think that Israel should be treated.

We should support any free society that is threatened by totalitarians. Ireland should strongly support Israel and despise its totalitarian enemies - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The accusations of Irish being pro-palestinian on your website are very much one-sided. You fail to consider the important question of WHY that might be the case. If a wide section of Irish and indeed international opinion feels sympathy for one side of a conflict then it is imperative that you look at why that might be the case rather than accuse people of bias.

In fact I have a section on this:
Why do people support the Palestinians?
http://markhumphrys.com/left.israel.html#why

I agree it is not all about anti-semitism. For a lot of the world, it is. But for Ireland, that is probably only a minority reason.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Linking this back to something like the Limerick pogrom of over 100 years ago as 'proof' makes your argument seem lacking. The same goes for IRA support for Nazis which you mention as partial proof that Irish are anti-Israel. Absurd linkage if ever I saw it. The IRA supported the Nazi's because they were enemies of the British- a simple reading of Irish history would show this.

Rather disingenuous way of arguing. I provide a few one-liner links to some background events. It is obvious that 99 percent of the page is about the modern era.

jonniebgood1 · 21-07-2012 8:31pm

humphrys wrote: »

In fact I have a section on this:
Why do people support the Palestinians?
http://markhumphrys.com/left.israel.html#why

The reason why people have sympathy for Palestinians (or as you quite tellingly describe them 'racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists') is not in your list. In fact your list is hardly credible in its over the top hostility.

humphrys wrote: »

I agree it is not all about anti-semitism. For a lot of the world, it is. But for Ireland, that is probably only a minority reason.

If you think that the reason that alot of people in the world have sympathy for the Palestinians is anti-semitism then you simply lack a basic knowledge of world affairs, and even basic human compassion. People have sympathy for innocent victims in any conflict, whether in Israel, Africa or Asia. If people see people suffer they feel sorry for them. Its that simple.

KyussBishop · 21-07-2012 8:31pm

Heh, fun site.

I'm 'confused'; Israel has pretty totalitarian control of Gaza (and well, most Palestinian territory), who should we support and despise there?

Nodin · 21-07-2012 8:43pm

humphrys wrote: »

I talk about Christianity at length as well, but that's not what seems to annoy people like the original poster. A major theme of my site is the left's defence of Islamism, but it's not the only theme..

Its the major theme by the looks of things.

humphrys wrote: »

I don't think you understand. This thread was started by someone else about me. I ignored it for a long time, but finally decided I should say something.

....yep, 9 months later, depite feck all posts in the thread and the OP having closed their account. I believe you. Others may doubt, but not me.

humphrys wrote: »

We should support any free society that is threatened by totalitarians. Ireland should strongly support Israel.....

....and as soon as Israel stops its colonial escapade in the occupied territories, I'm sure people will take an entirely different attitude.

humphrys · 21-07-2012 9:55pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reason why people have sympathy for Palestinians (or as you quite tellingly describe them 'racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists') is not in your list. In fact your list is hardly credible in its over the top hostility.

So Hamas are not racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists?
Which part of that description is inaccurate as applied to Hamas?
Do you know anything about what Hamas is and what it believes?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you think that the reason that alot of people in the world have sympathy for the Palestinians is anti-semitism then you simply lack a basic knowledge of world affairs, and even basic human compassion. People have sympathy for innocent victims in any conflict, whether in Israel, Africa or Asia. If people see people suffer they feel sorry for them. Its that simple.

Nonsense.The reason why the Arab Muslim world hates Israel is mainly because they are Jews versus Muslims. If they were Muslims, doing exactly the same things, no one in the Arab world would care. Where were the Muslim tears for the south Sudanese?

Jordan killed 10,000 Palestinians in 1970, and Syria killed 20,000 Islamists in 1982, and Kuwait ethnically cleansed the Palestinians in 1991 and the Egyptian dictator Nasser gassed Yemen in 1967. But the Muslim world and the left don't care, because the culprits were not Jews / first-worlders.

If the Israelis were Muslims, and the Palestinians were Christians or Jews, and both sides behaved exactly the same (i.e. Christian radicals suicide bombing Muslim buses), then the Arab Muslim world would support the Israelis. In fact, the western left would support them then.

For much of the world - but not for everyone I agree - it's all about religion. If you don't understand this, you understand little about the conflict.

Your view is the standard left-wing view of Israel taught by almost everyone in Ireland. You seem to think it is the only view.

Frank Grimes · 21-07-2012 10:06pm

humphrys: You do realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims, or even religious?

KyussBishop · 21-07-2012 10:13pm

Okey, so apparently all Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews, and the Jews (or to avoid such generalizations, the Israeli government

) are just minding their own business defending themselves, by slowly annexing the West Bank and keeping Gaza under siege?

Nodin · 21-07-2012 10:35pm

Muslims not the only "theme", comes on with another rant about the muslims....I still believe though.

humphrys wrote: »

So Hamas (....) the only view.

You'll find that 10,000 figure for Jordan is a tad off, by about 5,000.

You do realise that then, and still now, a great deal of the middle east is run by monarchies, dictatorships?

Why do you make no mention of the colonisation of the occupied territories?

humphrys · 21-07-2012 10:56pm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

humphrys: You do realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims, or even religious?

Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell

humphrys · 21-07-2012 11:06pm

Nodin wrote: »

Muslims not the only "theme", comes on with another rant about the muslims....

People wanted to talk about Israel. The Israel conflict is all about Islam.

By claiming that it is about nationalism or human rights, the left is trying to shoehorn it into a western framework that makes sense to them. But that is not what it is about. It is about Islam and the place of the dhimmi within the lands of Islam. It's all about Islam. It always has been, since the Arab states invaded in 1948.

You are projecting your secular western values onto people who do not share them.

Nodin · 21-07-2012 11:07pm

humphrys wrote: »

Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell

Not all Palestinians live in Gaza.

You might get back to me on the points raised in post 27.

Nodin · 21-07-2012 11:08pm

humphrys wrote: »

People wanted to talk about Israel. The Israel conflict is all about Islam.

By claiming that it is about nationalism or human rights, the left is trying to shoehorn it into a western framework that makes sense to them. But that is not what it is about. It is about Islam and the place of the dhimmi within the lands of Islam. It's all about Islam. It always has been, since the Arab states invaded in 1948.

You are projecting your secular western values onto people who do not share them.

Rrreeeally. So being colonised by Israel makes no odds to the people in those areas at all?

Frank Grimes · 21-07-2012 11:12pm

humphrys wrote: »

Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell

This has nothing to do with what I asked you - do you realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims and/or religious?

RayM · 21-07-2012 11:49pm

humphrys wrote: »

The Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, is the most anti-American head of state in the west. He has a long track record that the media entirely ignored:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.america.html

I notice in your main article about President Higgins that you believe...

...Michael D. Higgins will make Ireland hated in America. Ireland will be linked again and again in world news headlines with anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-business statements. Michael D. will endlessly attack the Celtic Tiger, and this message will be heard abroad. American companies will hear it. What is wrong with Irish people? Do they want to be poor?

At the end of his presidency, if (or, more accurately, when) it turns out that he hasn't actually made Ireland "hated" in America and that American companies (who are here, not because of our love of all things American, but because they don't like paying tax) haven't been scared away by him, will you be prepared to admit that your assertion was utterly wrong and very silly indeed?

Also, given the quite rabid nature of your anti-Obama rhetoric, do you ever worry that the type of reactionary blow-hards who equate opposition to a country's president or foreign policy with outright hatred of that country... might perceive you as being anti-American?

jonniebgood1 · 22-07-2012 12:15am

humphrys wrote: »

So Hamas are not racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists?
Which part of that description is inaccurate as applied to Hamas?
Do you know anything about what Hamas is and what it believes?

Why do you feel the need to divert to Hamas. That is the same as a person in the 1970's saying all Irishmen were IRA. Total rubbish as Hamas are seperate to what we are discussing. Your reference to them reflects an inability to discuss in a rational manner the treatment of ordinary (non-Hamas) civilians.

humphrys wrote: »

The reason why the Arab Muslim world hates Israel is mainly because they are Jews versus Muslims. If they were Muslims, doing exactly the same things, no one in the Arab world would care. Where were the Muslim tears for the south Sudanese?

Again this is fabrication or some kind of world view created to suit a viewpoint. Israel as a state was set up following the atrocities committed against Jewish people in WWII. Many of its proponents are shaming the memory of these unfortunate victims by their modern day behaviours. They act like their former Nazi overlords denying civil rights to ordinary people who are unconnected to Hamas. A very serious part of this problem is people who refuse to recognise this, a category which you seem to fall within. You should reflect on that as you spout nonsense such as you openly expressed view of palestinians as "racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists". Now you need to explain Mr Humphrys at what age a defenseless child becomes a racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascist. And if they becoe this monster what type of ruling regime of a country gives way to a situation where this happens?
Thats a question to be answered by the way.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 8:43am

Nodin wrote: »

Not all Palestinians live in Gaza.

You don't seem to care about human rights in Gaza now that Hamas rules it.

I suspect you wouldn't be that interested in human rights under Fatah in the West Bank either.

But you should understand that the brutal, thuggish, oppressive nature of the societies Hamas and Fatah want to set up is the main reason I wish for their defeat.

If the Palestinians wanted to set up a secular liberal democracy, I would be sympathetic to their cause. But they don't, so I amn't.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 8:48am

Frank Grimes wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what I asked you - do you realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims and/or religious?

The setting up of a brutal sharia state in Gaza has nothing to do with the issue? It's the very core of the issue. It's the reason why no secular liberal westerner should support the Palestinian cause.

You do realise that people carry Hamas flags through Dublin on anti-Israel demos?

You do realise that the Irish Anti-War Movement openly supports Hamas?

humphrys · 22-07-2012 9:00am

RayM wrote: »

At the end of his presidency, if (or, more accurately, when) it turns out that he hasn't actually made Ireland "hated" in America and that American companies (who are here, not because of our love of all things American, but because they don't like paying tax) haven't been scared away by him, will you be prepared to admit that your assertion was utterly wrong and very silly indeed?

If Michael D. shuts up with his opinions on America and Israel for 7 years, I will have been wrong. It would be a major departure from his previous life though. I do note that he has said little on world affairs so far. But that may change if we get a Republican US President and if Israel bombs Iran.

As for the Celtic Tiger, he has already been banging on about how bad that was:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.higgins.html#celtic.tiger
Not what I want American companies to hear, but maybe you think it's great.

RayM wrote: »

Also, given the quite rabid nature of your anti-Obama rhetoric, do you ever worry that the type of reactionary blow-hards who equate opposition to a country's president or foreign policy with outright hatred of that country... might perceive you as being anti-American?

People who support American power and leadership of the free world, who want an aggressive America defending western interests in the world, tend to dislike Obama. Pro-Americans in Britain, Israel and other countries around the world would agree with me on this. Plenty of Brits and Israelis can't stand Obama either.

People who think that America needs its wings clipped, and needs to be more apologetic, and the UN or EU or international law should take a lead, tend to like Obama.

It's obvious that I dislike Obama because he isn't pro-American enough for me.

Obama's rhetoric is awful, and encourages the enemy:
http://markhumphrys.com/obama.war.html#cairo.speech

But I do admit that he's not all bad. He's killing the enemy without trial, instead of putting them in Guantanamo. He's not all bad:
http://markhumphrys.com/obama.html#defence

humphrys · 22-07-2012 9:21am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to divert to Hamas. That is the same as a person in the 1970's saying all Irishmen were IRA.

Divert? Hamas were elected by the people of Gaza. They are the de facto government. They represent the people of Gaza. The IRA back in the day never represented most Irish people.

I haven't even started on the PLO / Fatah yet, but I thought we could agree on Hamas. Now you say Hamas setting up a brutal sharia state is irrelevant to the conflict? Are we talking about imaginary Palestinians here, or about the real ones, who support Hamas and Fatah?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Again this is fabrication or some kind of world view created to suit a viewpoint. Israel as a state was set up following the atrocities committed against Jewish people in WWII. Many of its proponents are shaming the memory of these unfortunate victims by their modern day behaviours. They act like their former Nazi overlords denying civil rights to ordinary people who are unconnected to Hamas.

To declare that Israelis are like the Nazis marks you as not serious.
The Nazis killed 90 percent of all Jews in Poland.
Where is the genocide of the Palestinians? Where are the gas chambers?
To compare a low-level conflict to industrial genocide suggests you know little about either. Maybe you should read a bit about the Holocaust.

David Norris is the same as you:
Norris uses "Nazi" language about Israel
http://markhumphrys.com/david.norris.html#nazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A very serious part of this problem is people who refuse to recognise this, a category which you seem to fall within. You should reflect on that as you spout nonsense such as you openly expressed view of palestinians as "racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascists". Now you need to explain Mr Humphrys at what age a defenseless child becomes a racist, mass-murdering Islamist religious fascist. And if they becoe this monster what type of ruling regime of a country gives way to a situation where this happens?
Thats a question to be answered by the way.

Israel has no problem with innocent children. It does have a problem with the parties and groups representing adult Palestinians - Hamas and Fatah.

If the Palestinians ever support a party that is secular, liberal, non-violent and not a bunch of brutal Jew-killing terrorists, I will take a look at their cause again. Until then, I wish Israel good luck and think we all should support it.

If these imaginary Palestinians who believe in western values exist, I think they should get organised. Where is their party?

Frank Grimes · 22-07-2012 12:15pm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

humphrys: You do realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims, or even religious?

humphrys wrote: »

Yes I see the wonderful secular liberal democracy in Gaza. Gay rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom for all.

http://markhumphrys.com/gaza.html#taliban.hell

Frank Grimes wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what I asked you - do you realise that not all Palestinians are Muslims and/or religious?

humphrys wrote: »

The setting up of a brutal sharia state in Gaza has nothing to do with the issue? It's the very core of the issue. It's the reason why no secular liberal westerner should support the Palestinian cause.

You do realise that people carry Hamas flags through Dublin on anti-Israel demos?

You do realise that the Irish Anti-War Movement openly supports Hamas?

I get it, you don't like Hamas. You still haven't addressed my question though.

jonniebgood1 · 22-07-2012 1:03pm

humphrys wrote: »

To declare that Israelis are like the Nazis marks you as not serious.

Except I did not 'declare' this. You are making up stuff now- please do not make up stuff that I 'declare'. I said "They act like their former Nazi overlords denying civil rights to ordinary people who are unconnected to Hamas." I made no Holocaust comparison- you made that up.

humphrys wrote: »

If the Palestinians ever support a party that is secular, liberal, non-violent and not a bunch of brutal Jew-killing terrorists, I will take a look at their cause again. Until then, I wish Israel good luck and think we all should support it.

Who is morally in the right. Whats the casualty rate for example?

Israeli Casualties: Adults and Minors
September 2000 to May 5, 2002
Civilian Injuries: 2,707
Civilian Deaths: 319

...
Palestinian Casualties: Adults and Minors in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
September 2000 to May 6, 2002
Injuries: 19,189
Deaths: 1,538

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/arccrisis/ispal-casualty.html

humphrys wrote: »

Israel has no problem with innocent children.

Palestinian Fatalities of Minors Under Age 18
October 2001 to May 5, 2002
Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Security Forces in Occupied Territories
210 (ages 4 months to 17)
22 percent of total civilian fatalities (956)Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territories
1 (age 2 months) (by gunfire)
6 percent of total civilian fatalities (17)

Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Security Forces in Israel
1 (age 14) (by Israeli police force)
5 percent of total civilian fatalities (22)

Deaths of Palestinian Minors Caused by Delay in Obtaining Medical Treatment Due to Israeli Restriction of Movement
8 (stillborn to age 11)
35 percent of total civilian fatalities (23)

Nodin · 22-07-2012 1:34pm

humphrys wrote: »

You don't seem (........) so I amn't.

Amazing how you constantly seek to deflect the issue in order to allow another muslim bashing rant.

Peoples have the right to self determination. You paint yourself as a "liberal" but in fact support colonialism.

You didn't answer the question - So being colonised by Israel makes no odds to the people in those areas at all?

humphrys wrote: »

who want an aggressive America defending western interests in the world,.

What are "western interests"?

humphrys · 22-07-2012 2:23pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Palestinian Fatalities of Minors Under Age 18
October 2001 to May 5, 2002
Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Security Forces in Occupied Territories

A breakdown of these stats is on my site:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.crimes.html#israel.tries

From this we see that 95 percent of all Palestinian deaths are male. Why is this?

We can see (see graphs on my site) that the Palestinians kill a broad section of society, including old people and people minding their own business in coffee shops and on buses.

While in contrast (see graphs on my site) the Israelis kill young men engaged in violent attacks and riots, and stupid kids standing around watching. Women and old people are not at risk. People who avoid riot zones are not at risk. At around age 12 (see the graphs), Palestinian boys (but note, not girls) start watching riots, helping, spotting, running back and forth, throwing stones and carrying toy guns, and, inevitably, getting shot. One of the reasons their parents let them do this (indeed encourage them to do this) is because of the culture of Islamic child martyrdom in Palestinian mosques, schools and kids TV.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 2:29pm

Nodin wrote: »

Amazing how you constantly seek to deflect the issue in order to allow another muslim bashing rant.

You're the one who wants to discuss the Israel conflict without discussing Islam. You're trying to rule out discussion of the major cause of the conflict in favour of your imaginary causes.

I see no reason why I should play your game.

Nodin wrote: »

Peoples have the right to self determination. You paint yourself as a "liberal" but in fact support colonialism.

So Hamas self-rule in Gaza is a victory for "liberal" values is it?

The setting up the brutal Hamas sharia state in Gaza is something "liberals" should applaud is it?

jonniebgood1 · 22-07-2012 2:30pm

humphrys wrote: »

A breakdown of these stats is on my site:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.crimes.html#israel.tries

From this we see that 95 percent of all Palestinian deaths are male. Why is this?

We can see (see graphs on my site) that the Palestinians kill a broad section of society, including old people and people minding their own business in coffee shops and on buses.

While in contrast (see graphs on my site) the Israelis kill young men engaged in violent attacks and riots, and stupid kids standing around watching. Women and old people are not at risk. People who avoid riot zones are not at risk. At around age 12 (see the graphs), Palestinian boys (but note, not girls) start watching riots, helping, spotting, running back and forth, throwing stones and carrying toy guns, and, inevitably, getting shot. One of the reasons their parents let them do this (indeed encourage them to do this) is because of the culture of Islamic child martyrdom in Palestinian mosques, schools and kids TV.

Can you explain why there are 319 civilian deaths on one side and 1,538 on the other?

oceanclub · 22-07-2012 2:41pm

To say his site is wildly partisan is an understatement. He rightly condemns Islam as homophobic. But then in the same site, praises Orson Scott Card, a notorious homophobe, for his "great politics" and condemns MDH for rightly pointing out Mark Steyns' homophobia.

It's not to say Humpheys isn't right in some circumstances, but the site is just so wildly one-sided and over the top it's hard to take seriously. He condemns RBB but he comes off as a right-wing version of him, not seeing _any_ good in even the mildest of opponents.

P.

KyussBishop · 22-07-2012 3:01pm

Ya it's just feeding attention at this stage; he seems determined not to answer, nevermind even acknowledge questions relating to Israel, so there's not really a chance of any worthwhile or honest discussion.

oceanclub · 22-07-2012 3:44pm

http://markhumphrys.com/ni.nationalists.html

I personally would trade our independence from Britain just to get the Public Record Office back

Bizarrely, Mark would sell out our self-determination for a single building(*), yet defends the right of other countries to use much more violence for _their_ self-determination. Does he put such limits, for example, on the self-determination of Israel?

P.

(*) I too lament the loss of these records.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 3:44pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can you explain why there are 319 civilian deaths on one side and 1,538 on the other?

I just explained that. You aren't listening.

Absolute numbers killed in fighting is a poor way to decide which side to support. Otherwise we would all support Germany in WW2 (7 million dead) rather than Britain.

A better way is to ask what kind of society the combatants want to set up. The left never asks this question about the Palestinians. You seem uninterested in this question too.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 3:50pm

oceanclub wrote: »

But then in the same site, praises Orson Scott Card, a notorious homophobe, for his "great politics" and condemns MDH for rightly pointing out Mark Steyns' homophobia.

Can you give me an example of Orson Scott Card's homophobia. I musn't have read those columns.

Can you also give me an example of Mark Steyn's homophobia. The column MDH refers to is not remotely homophobic.

Please supply actual quotes. Thanks.

humphrys · 22-07-2012 4:04pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya it's just feeding attention at this stage; he seems determined not to answer, nevermind even acknowledge questions relating to Israel, so there's not really a chance of any worthwhile or honest discussion.

Oh really? What question do you have that I have not addressed?

There's a lot of people hostile to Israel here. It's hard to deal with them all. I have some free time today so this is fun, but it may not last.

I've provided a lot of links and facts and graphs. I haven't got a lot of links and facts in reply.

http://markhumphrys.com/israel.html

oceanclub · 22-07-2012 4:06pm

You must know very little about OSC if you don't know he wishes to keep anti-gay laws in place:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#section_4

markhumphrys.com

Comments