my best yet - victim of evil AusBC censors

My 'target:'
«Anon :
22 Jun 2010 10:59:26pm
Last time I checked, a lack of conviction DOES mean innocence. Or are we talking about different legal systems here? Or are you implying that justice only occurs when *you* agree with the judge's decision? Independence and sovereignty are established issues of international law. And it is through these things which Israel claims the land it holds. If you think that these rules don't apply, you need to come up with a better legal argument then "I don't like it".
Alert moderator»

Note: "then" [sic; instead of 'than'], and no 'Reply' button.

My (so far not published) input:

«duck, weave & dissemble

This's no Darlinghurst courtroom; the audience in 'our' AusBC's forums is mainly the mums'n dads of Awe-Straya and any nippers allowed up late. (Lawyers are about as scanty as men in frocks on the outer Barcoo...)

So I will stick to the vernacular.

It's not what one abhors but what's *right & fair* that counts.

Exactly which part of "no conviction does *not* mean innocent" is not to understand?

Viewers of Perry Mason will recall that suspects are *assumed* innocent - until their conviction.

'No conviction' obtains *only* because the perpetrators have not yet fronted the charges against them, here improper and aggressive alienation of almost an entire country.

Now, 'explain' is different from 'justify.'

Explanation 1: Civil war, 'unilateral' independence.

Explanation 2: Balfour (motive), Jabotinsky (method) Ben-Gurion's arms (means).

'Matter of opinion' perhaps; differentiate by which 'explanation' describes the open-wound crime-scene.

Additionally, they perpetrated plan Dalet, the Deir Yassin massacre, all the death and destruction that accompanied and followed. Oh! One other, tiny *fact*: almost all Zionists in Palestine in '47/8 were immigrants, some more 'legal' than others.

Perhaps someone could thoroughly *justify* the violent dispossession of the hapless Palestinians; the charges stand until disproven.»

Comment: AFAIK, it's all true, or *fair* comments rooted in truths. I said as much to the moderators, via an 'alert:'

«I attempt to make *factual* comments, interspersed with *fact-based* opinions. I submitted a response titled 'duck, weave & dissemble' to this comment at appr 3:51pm, 23 Jun 2010. That was over 5 hours ago now, and I notice that you've published a few comments in the meantime; your 'comment-clock' (i.e. latest comment) stands at 2:46pm. Failing factual error in my comment, would you please be so kind as to publish it, in the name of the good old Aussie "Fair go?"
Thanks in advance, (signed.)»

Result: No visible action.

Comment: The AusBC is 'our' publicly-financed broadcaster; if they refuse to publish some truth, Q: What chances of justice prevailing are there? A: None - or at least fewer via the AusBC.

Note: I had another 'ready' when shock, horror - no 'Reply' button.

So here, my 2nd (so far not published) input:

««The IDF also killed 80 other civilians that day - by close-range shooting, artillery fire, aerial fire and naval fire. Among them were six women and 29 children under the age of 16. Just go to B'Tselem's website and read the list: a 7-year-old boy, a 1-year-old girl, another 1-year-old girl, a 3-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl.

B'Tselem is careful to differentiate between Palestinians who "took part in the hostilities" and Palestinians who "did not take part in the hostilities." Its list of fatalities states: "Farah Amar Fuad al-Hilu, 1-year-old resident of Gaza City, killed on 04.01.2009 in Gaza City, by live ammunition. Did not participate in hostilities. Additional information: Killed while she fled from her house with her family after her grandfather (Fuad al-Hilu, 62 ) was shot by soldiers who entered the house." The grandfather also did not participate in hostilities.

Or perhaps ... because Riyeh Abu Hajaj, 64, and Majda Abu Hajaj, 37, a mother and daughter, were the only ones killed while carrying a white flag that January 4? No. Matar, 17, and Mohammed, 16, were also killed. They were shot from an IDF position in a nearby house as they pushed a cart carrying the wounded and dead of the Abu Halima family, who were hit by a white phosphorous bomb that penetrated their home in northern Beit Lahiya. Five members of the family were killed on the spot, including a 1-year-old girl. Another young woman would die of her injuries a few weeks later.»
[haaretz]

Anon: Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin seamlessly continued.»

Note: Posted via next available 'Reply' button.

Comment: Waiting ... with no 'great expectations.'

AusBC continues to censor as Z-crimes also continue

Submitted to "A year in Iran" @ ~4:25pm,17Jun'10:
(AusBC clock = blog+8hr)

«"All options!" is how that US threatens Iran - even though making such threats is itself illegal. Israel is not quite so subtle(??!) - it *openly* threatens to attack - similarly illegal. If a force crosses *into* some territory, that's called invasion, and if those invaders go on to dispossesses the erstwhile legal owner/occupants without their permission that's called theft. I had assumed that this was all cleared up latest at Nuremberg but apparently not. The opprobrium is transferable and is occurring, to perpetrators and supporters both. Anon, perhaps you overlooked my "the IAEA sees *NO* evidence?"»

Submitted to "(AIJAC) Of blockades" @ ~4:37pm,17Jun'10:

«Lost? The original *and continuing* 'driver' of this horrid situation is a crime so wide and deep it almost defies comprehension, namely the theft of ½Palestine [wiki/Balfour_Declaration_1917 -> wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]. Clearly, ½ wasn't enough, so they (the invading aliens) went both extremist & terrorist [wiki/Plan_Dalet as typified by wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre]. They, now 'official' occupiers of the *other* ½Palestine, building illegal 'settlements' = Lebensraum-theft, from pre-'47 right down to today; simply never stop [invade Lebanon 2006, Gaza '08/9, the blockade & latest = act of war on high seas against a NATO-member Turkey, killing NATO civilians - where is the NATO response?] It is quite clear that there can never be peace without justice - and the wicked actions against the ELO/Os reflect on all Israelis who support the vile policies, plus all in the diaspora who do not give their all, attempting to *effectively* object. Israelis & their supporters (see headline article) wail: "Why attack us?" - Apparently forgetting that Israel *caused* the problem 101% itself; IF the aliens had not invaded Palestine [wiki/War_of_aggression], THEN there would be *no problem at all*. Claiming any UN authority is *totally* nullified by (grievously!) violating the same authority's rules.
Disclaimer: Denounce all crimes; support *NO* criminals.»

censored input to 'Israeli raid: crimes against humanity?'

[This post may evolve]

-=*=-

'Target' comment by Anon @ 02Jun'10,8:55pm

Where is the logic in Israel's existence? Easy. Israel unilaterally declared independence.

Then when Israel's neighbours refused to accept its existence, Israel upheld its independence with military force.

Independence does not need an old book, or an invisible friend, in order to occur. So your comment (while insulting to the Jewish faith) was hilariously incorrect.

Independence simply requires strength and intent. Which Israel had. And so it happened.

So much for YOUR logic, such as it was.

Reply Alert moderator

My response, submitted 03Jun'10,3:51pm

«It is totally irrelevant what anyone may say, it's only what Israel does that counts. The intent and effect, if not the modus operandi developed for plan Dalet, demonstrated at Deir Yassin have been continuously applied (and modernised; see missile-firing helicopters etc), from then until now. No declaration nor dressing up (military uniforms) changed the nature or effect of the policy, all one has to do is observe, pictorial proof [.jpg]: tinyurl.com/37wcw2x

Without significant change (for the better), this progression contains the legacy, the present and points to the future - of ever increasing dispossession by one side, ever increasing despair in the other.»

Above did not appear but other, later has;

Comment:

Of course, having been censored, one gets a bit wary of 'speaking freely,' but there is nothing non-factual in my input, let alone any infraction of the AusBC's published guidelines - they practice brazen and cowardly comment suppression = un- and anti-democratic censorship.