SteveHill, the terrorist wannabe

“…I have said I would, in the position of a Gazan citizen, feel like arming myself for my own self-defence…”

No you didn’t say that. Permit me to remind you:

“If I lived in Gaza I would be looking to arm myself with some Qassan (sic) rockets..”

No “feel like” arming yourself, no mention of self-defence, no qualifiers .

You said you would be looking to arm yourself with some Qassan (sic) rockets … which indicates actual intent rather than “feeling like”.

Read yourself again if you don’t believe me.

Since Hamas uses kassams to try to kill Israelis. are we really meant to believe that you were in Gaza and among Hamas, with the kassams, you would simply stack them in the basement of your building and forget about them?

Or perhaps I really have misunderstood you. Perhaps you would lead by example and not use them ?

Hairshirt
Good post and the link, http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Sderot.htm is one Steve Hill might usefully check out if he’s serious about, “For the record, I am concerned about all victims of violence including those in Sderot.”

Let’s see.

Yohoho

Is English your first language? I would say in the contexts I have used the terms that “I would be looking to” and “I would feel like” were practically exact synonyms.

The rest of your post is an extrapolation of nothing into oblivion: utterly meaningless.

AKUS, I have never before commented on this site nor, until yesterday, looked at it or seen any need to do so.

I am hear now for a specific purpose, which I have made abundantly clear, as regards this one page only. I shall be taking legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning. A brief review of the rest of this site simply confirms my prior suspicion that it is of no interest to me whatsoever.

I have answered your questions already. I post only to refute an erroneous statement.

If this Steve Hill is really a lawyer,then these people never say what they really mean,nor do they really mean what they say.They are contortionists.

SH says that.
“I shall take legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning”

In one of his former posts Steve Hill writes.

“I’m more than capable of bringing a legal action without having to pay any expansive lawyers to act on my behalf”.

What will it be Steve Hill,take expansive advice,or just rely on your brilliant legal mind.

BTW,Steve Hill try Daniel Machover he might do it for free,or at the very least ,give you a very big discount.

SH – ‘There is a difference between taking (legal) advice and retaining lawyers to act in a legal action.‘

Still Steve, Daniel Machover is just the person for you. He hates Israel even more than you do.

I would like to see his presentation in court. Might be a real eyeopener as to his professional abilities versus his political abilities.

Georgina and Berchmans might chip in with Dotty bringing up some form of help from his rear.

As I thought, Hill has made no mention of Hairshirt’s link to WildOlive (above). His comment about being concerned for all victims of violence including those in Sderot, consequently seems less than convincing.

It occurred to me this morning that many CiFWatch regulars have spent the past 24+ hours massaging the ego of Steve Hill by responding to his posts. He’s made threats of lawfare, implied that he’s, ‘tried to see it from our point of view’, and then made further threats of lawfare.

Most of us have already formed our own opinions of what type of person he really is – people with this kind of prejudice and of his age rarely change their point of view – although it feels like a waste of time responding to his tortured logic, it’s good to have demonstrated the unanimity of diverse groups around the world who won’t be cowed by threats of legal action to close down their legitimate argument.

Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian, then we might be getting somewhere.

Mr. Hill in your post of January 3rd 2010 at 2.33 a.m. you wrote the following,
“ANyway, why do you all debate at the level of 8 year olds in a school playground? Do you find no stimulation in discussing ideas as adults rather than simply hurling meaningless insults? I believe Britain has many faults (not least illegally invading Iraq at the behest of the idiot Bush).”
In the category of meaningless insults would you not include the term ‘idiot Bush’?
Or are you exposing your own glaring inconsistency to provide us all with some amusement?

Steve Hill chides Jews for not making peace with their enemies. After all, if the Protestants and the Catholics could do it in Northern Ireland, why can’t the Jews and the Muslims in Palestine?

Because this is a much deeper problem, old chap. You may be an expert on the Irish problem, but when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, you are a hopelessly naive. Israel has been willing to make peace all along, but the Arabs have not. As for the people of Gaza, they should ask the Egyptians or the Arab League for help. They already receive generous funds from UNRWA.

Yohoho
You are right of course – let’s hope CiFWatch becomes a real force to be reckoned with among the ranks of the antis.

Yohoho

cityca, it is well on the way to becoming that, hence the “contributions” from the Guardianistas themselves.

If CifWatch was of little or no account, then why would they bother?

Its clear that the quality and openness of the debate here is preferred by these refugees from CiF – not only the “banned”, but those who then flip back to grind their teeth on CiF and come up with alternative names for CiFWatch since the comments they make there that actually use the dreaded term “CiFWatch” are immediately deleted.

The democratic Internet in action.

We will, I am sure, one day have a comment or two from just about every Israel-basher on CiF (and maybe even some of the staff) who have watched a comment mildly critical of the GWV vanish into the ether.

Frankly, Steve Hill should be grateful that he has the opportunity to express his views so openly here – he may not get the same chance of CiF.

modernityblog

That’s why I think CiF Watch is feared by bigots, biased moderators, sloppy journalists, lazy editors, complacent management and those who find it difficult to defend their own views with reason or evidence. That’s a lot of people.

Very true.

And if Georgina and Matt and Brian and Alan and his sibling and Victoria thought that CIFWatch was a ‘temporary aberration’, they were strongly mistaken. I spend just as much time here as I do near the CI(F) cesspool.

Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian

Hear, hear!

Please don’t feed the stone troll.

Now if we could only persuade Tony Blair to sue Steve Hill.

Steve Hill, it’s back to work for you if Tony Blair decides to sue you.

Tony Blair is very high maintenance