Palestinian group threatens to attack Jewish targets abroad

[Johnny Canuck3]

you might want to sort oout you shite quote there to make it slightly less senationalist weee janny .....



that quote in full

I don't see how your quote makes it any better.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's because those groups aren't targetted in the way jews are. So there's no security around christian churches, and lots around synagogues. Not fair, is it?

That's because, contrary to media myth-making, synagogues aren't only threatened by the ravening Islamic hordes (who are a small part of any threat), but by fuckwits drawn from many walks of life.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's because, contrary to media myth-making, synagogues aren't only threatened by the ravening Islamic hordes (who are a small part of any threat), but by fuckwits drawn from many walks of life.

I'm not denying that jews have a lot of enemies.

All my thread commented on, was that a specific group in Palestine, is talking about also targetting jews outside of Israel.

Another addition to the list of 'those to be watched out for'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't see how your quote makes it any better.

It doesn't have to "make it better",. What it does is add context.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It doesn't have to "make it better",. What it does is add context.

Ok, context noted. They're going to target uninvolved jews outside Israel, until Palestinian prisoners inside Israel are released.

I feel so much better knowing that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not denying that jews have a lot of enemies.

All my thread commented on, was that a specific group in Palestine, is talking about also targetting jews outside of Israel.

Another addition to the list of 'those to be watched out for'.

The problem is that it's taken till now for the "another addition to the list" comment.

Most of us with an interest in Israel know that, but the casual browser might see your thread title and OP and draw a different conclusion, perhaps believe that there is something unique about the situation when the truth is that lots of people want a piece of us, each for their own demented reason(s).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok, context noted. They're going to target uninvolved jews outside Israel, until Palestinian prisoners inside Israel are released.

I feel so much better knowing that.

It isn't about whether you feel better or not, the world isn't Johnny-centric. It's about not supplying people with partial information when you have access to more, which you did. A good reason not to do so is so that people don't think to themselves something along the lines of "why did Johnny leave that paragraph out, was it because it lessened the impact of what he was attempting to put across? Does he have an agenda?".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The problem is that it's taken till now for the "another addition to the list" comment.

Most of us with an interest in Israel know that, but the casual browser might see your thread title and OP and draw a different conclusion, perhaps believe that there is something unique about the situation when the truth is that lots of people want a piece of us, each for their own demented reason(s).

An item came up in the news about al aqsa. I posted a thread about it. It's a narrow topic under the general rubric of 'enemies of jews'.

While there's no reason to hide the idea of many enemies, neither is it totally necessary in a thread dealing with these comments by this group.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It isn't about whether you feel better or not, the world isn't Johnny-centric. It's about not supplying people with partial information when you have access to more, which you did. A good reason not to do so is so that people don't think to themselves something along the lines of "why did Johnny leave that paragraph out, was it because it lessened the impact of what he was attempting to put across? Does he have an agenda?".

The 'feel better' comment was tongue in cheek.

I left out the middle paragraph because it dealt with Islamic Jihad, and didn't deal specifically with the al aqsa comments. Go and read it for yourself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, if I had an agenda, I wouldn't include a link wherein 'all' of the paragraphs were available to be accessed by anyone.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The 'feel better' comment was tongue in cheek.

I left out the middle paragraph because it dealt with Islamic Jihad, and didn't deal specifically with the al aqsa comments. Go and read it for yourself.

hmm me thinks you ought to have aleast comprehended the reasons for the alaqsa and islamic jihad groups first of all before considering if they are relevant ... other wise you'd have know they are...

 

[frogwoman]

That's because those groups aren't targetted in the way jews are.

yes they are . during the troubles in northern ireland they were targetted all the time, and jews had nothing to do with it. the peace process there is beginning to look increasingly shaky (i have no idea whether it is that way or not, but that's how it seems to me)

anyone, anywhere can be a target of terrorism, because there are so many terrorist groups and lone wolf individuals and so many different agendas.

however, its a question of how BIG the risk is, and there is no evidence that the risk is high, or getting higher, at least in developed countries. you are more likely to be struck by lightning or win the lottery than die in a terrorist attack, no matter who you are.

its tragic, it's awful and it is definitely worth worrying about and taking steps against, but it isn't going to happen to most people.

chavs with nothing to do, and fash (who we've actually had quite a few threats from in the past) are of much more concern.

i am more worried about crime and being threatened or attacked on the street, being burgled etc than i am about "islamic terrorism". i am also worried about the fact that so many people i know have turned to knee jerk islamophobia rather than look at these things rationally. it actually frightens me, the things you hear people saying these days.

it is an overblown response to a threat that is vastly overhyped and it only gives the terrorists more confidence and satisfaction at the impact they are having, it disrupts ordinary people's lives and it stigmatises a whole religion.

So there's no security around christian churches, and lots around synagogues. Not fair, is it?

why is it not fair?

all our security comes from the jewish community itself - we have a organisation called the CST which provides it, apart from one or two policemen during major events such as rosh hashanah/yom kippur.

the christian churches don't consider it to be a big issue, and imo they should but they have their own choice on how to spend their money and i can't tell them how to spend it.

christian churchs are and do get targetted.

palestinian christians get targetted. iraqi christians get targetted, and there wont really be that much difference between a church and a synagogue to a terrorist who wants to attack "western" targets to prove a point.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes they are . during the troubles in northern ireland they were targetted all the time, and jews had nothing to do with it. the peace process there is beginning to look increasingly shaky (i have no idea whether it is that way or not, but that's how it seems to me).

Yes, at certain times and places in history, catholics, protestants, huguenots, quakers, amish, hutterites etc have all been targetted groups.

But you're deluding yourself if you think the oppression of jews is in that same category. Jews have been a targetted group by the christian majority, for two thousand years.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

its tragic, it's awful and it is definitely worth worrying about and taking steps against, but it isn't going to happen to most people. .

Most people won't be in a major car accident, or have their home burn down, but you still buy insurance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

why is it not fair?

all our security comes from the jewish community itself - we have a organisation called the CST which provides it, apart from one or two policemen during major events such as rosh hashanah/yom kippur.

the christian churches don't consider it to be a big issue, and imo they should but they have their own choice on how to spend their money and i can't tell them how to spend it. .

It's unfair because, due to the mere fact that you're jewish, you must take precautions that most people needn't take.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, at certain times and places in history, catholics, protestants, huguenots, quakers, amish, hutterites etc have all been targetted groups.

But you're deluding yourself if you think the oppression of jews is in that same category. Jews have been a targetted group by the christian majority, for two thousand years.

what has this got to do with terrorism?

just because we as a religion have been targetted for the last two thousand years, it doesn't mean we're any more or less likely than anyone else to die in a terrorist attack. thats bollocks and the majority of terrorism is NOT perpetrated against jews.

most violent anti-semitism is carried out by thugs with nothing to do, by fash, or by governments and state police in certain countries. while there have been terrorist attacks on synagogues and jewish targets during the last few years, these have been isolated events and while it definitely is a threat it's not a big one, since these attacks do NOT occur very frequently and rarely do happen twice in the same country.

as i have already pointed out, the countries where jews are persecuted are very poor and often countries where muslims are too, in the name of the war on terror, as it has provided a very handy excuse for them to crack down on minorities, you'll even find baptist pastors being arrested on suspicion of terrorism and tortured. an al-aqsa terrorist has no REASON to go to such places to blow up synagogues, do they? why would they do it, to prove that they can? the places where they would want to attack, in countries like england and the us, are more than adequately protected.

Most people won't be in a major car accident, or have their home burn down, but you still buy insurance.

yeah, your point is? im not saying we should do nothing about it, im saying the likelihood of such a thing isn't very high and we are very well protected in the unlikely event that someone should try to do something.

of course we should protect ourselves, and we do, but you can't get away from the fact that it just isn't very likely to happen.

It's unfair because, due to the mere fact that you're jewish, you must take precautions that most people needn't take.

who says most people needn't take these precautions? it still makes sense for any religious group to take them, even if it probably won't happen.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But you're deluding yourself if you think the oppression of jews is in that same category. Jews have been a targetted group by the christian majority, for two thousand years.

As have Gypsies for the last 1500 years, and they don't have the option of affording security because of their marginalisation, so they still have to tolerate the casual murder and occasional pogroms that Jews no longer do.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

what has this got to do with terrorism?

just because we as a religion have been targetted for the last two thousand years, it doesn't mean we're any more or less likely than anyone else to die in a terrorist attack. thats bollocks and the majority of terrorism is NOT perpetrated against jews. .

But..... this thread is about a group who've said they plan to specifically target jews.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

an al-aqsa terrorist has no REASON to go to such places to blow up synagogues, do they? why would they do it, to prove that they can? the places where they would want to attack, in countries like england and the us, are more than adequately protected. .

You're attributing reason to these terrorists?

As for adequate protection, well, people have died in the US, Spain, UK etc, none of which are the poor countries you're talking about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

who says most people needn't take these precautions? it still makes sense for any religious group to take them, even if it probably won't happen.

Why the denial that jews have been treated different from other religious groups in western society?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As have Gypsies for the last 1500 years, and they don't have the option of affording security because of their marginalisation, so they still have to tolerate the casual murder and occasional pogroms that Jews no longer do.

Gypsies and jews are not in the same category.

Jews have been viewed by christians as the killers of christ. That has given them a special 'status' in western christian countries that doesn't need repeating.

 

[tangentlama]

"Palestinian militants linked to Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's increasingly fractured Fatah movement threatened on Monday to attack Jews overseas to force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners from its jails.

The call by militants of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades could heighten tension between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which has been crippled financially by the loss of Western aid, and of tax and customs revenues frozen by Israel, after Hamas's crushing electoral win over Fatah in January."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/706823.html

It won't be good for p.r. if they start attacking jews in other countries now too.

the article link has disappeared
do you have another source?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the article link has disappeared
do you have another source?

http://standforisrael.blogs.com/stand_for_israel/2006/04/palestinian_ter.html

 

[tangentlama]

from that link, i note another surfacing of the case being currently for attack on Iran/Regime change.

I’m sorry to say that the Israeli government has reacted to this horrible act in a way that is all out of proportion to what really happened. I just heard Dan Gillerman, Israel’s UN ambassador assess blame for the crime. Naturally, he mentioned Islamic Jihad but almost as an afterthought. That’s because IJ is of marginal significance in the death struggle between Israel and her Mideast enemies. Israel, or at least the Israeli government, sees its real enemies being Hamas and Iran. And naturally, they were the primary target of Gillerman’s analysis. But there was something strangely missing from the ambassador’s pronouncements. There was absolutely no separation in his mind between Iran, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They were equally culpable even though IJ did the deed and Hamas and Iran merely supported it tacitly. Gillerman certainly brought no proof that Hamas or Iran had any direct connection to the crime. He didn’t feel he needed to. The reason: lumping them all together confuses the untutored listener into believing that each actor could have been the one to plant the bomb given the opportunity. Here’s what Gillerman had to say to the BBC (audio stream):

“It’s very clear who is responsible. It’s a combination of the people who took direct credit for it–the Islamic Jihad–and the Al Aksa Brigades who are, by the way, part of Fatah, which is under control of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. But it is also the newly elected government of the Palestinian people, Hamas, a terror organization which has claimed and said time and time again that not only will it not recognize Israel, but it is intent on the destruction of Israel. But in addition to that the people who are responsible are the additional voices we are hearing from Iran, from Teheran, from the president of Iran…including his statement in a conference convened only at the end of last week in which he again called for the destruction of Israel.

So what we’re seeing on the ground is the implementation and a very swift one of the extreme and mad statements made by the leader of this new axis of terror, Iran. This axis of terror which consists of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah–which threatens not only the safety of Israel but the whole free world and civilization as we know it.”

What’s astonishing about this analysis is its full-blown hysteria. Iran moves from being merely a mortal threat to Israel to being a mortal threat to “the whole free world and civilization as we know it.” The reason for such fevered thinking is clear. Israel is desperate to ring the alarm bells in Washington about Iran. Israel wants the Bush Administration to do its dirty work by taking out Iran’s nuclear facility. Later in the interview, the BBC correspondent asks whether Israel would support military action against Iran. Gillerman dutifully lies and says that Israel is confident that diplomatic solutions will work in this situation. The truth is that Israel does not believe diplomacy will work. Israel believes that only military force will work. And if you scratched the surface, Israel would certainly agree with the Pentagon planners who are saying that only a nuclear bomb could penetrate Iran’s defenses and destroy the underground bunkers housing the nuclear facilities. In fact, the Israelis don’t want us to stop with attacking Iran’s nuclear plants. They want regime change. They want a full-fledged invasion to topple the mullahs and install a quiescent regime that will not threaten Israel.

I hope to God that Bush will realize that Israel has a vested interest in fomenting a war with Iran. I hope he will not take the bait offered by spokespeople like Gillerman who paint the most lurid picture possible of Iranian capability. In the interview, he warns that Iran is rapidly reaching the point of no return after which it will have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. This, of course, is a wild exaggeration. No doubt, Iran has made serious advances in its capabilities to enrich uranium. But it is years away from having a bomb. Israel says three years. U.S. experts say ten. So the idea that we must take out Iran now is preposterous.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...with-suicide-bombing-but-its-all-irans-fault/

 

[frogwoman]

You're attributing reason to these terrorists?

yes, they don't go around bombing places just because they feel like it, they do it to achieve strategic goals. they do it if they think they'll get something out of it, either disillusionment with the west, fear, sympathy for their cause, monetary or political gains, oil ... any number of reasons.

i think the iraq war was an act of terrorism but it certainly wasn't done out of "racism" or for "no reason at all", it was done for a clear motive - to consolidate the us's position in the middle east and to get oil . it wasn't totally illogical, and it's the same with the terrorists and their deeds.

just because you can see why they did it, and what they did it for, doesn't mean you're excusing it, btw.

As for adequate protection, well, people have died in the US, Spain, UK etc, none of which are the poor countries you're talking about.

but none of those attacks were against specifically jewish targets were they? the fact that our transport systems are vulnerable and we have shite intelligence has nothing to do with the security jews have set up themselves in the UK and in other countries WITHOUT GOVERNMENT "HELP".

But..... this thread is about a group who've said they plan to specifically target jews.

and as i have said, and which you seem not to notice, we don't have much of a reason to fear it since we are adequately protected and the likelihood of such a thing happening is so small anyway ...

Why the denial that jews have been treated different from other religious groups in western society?

im not denying it at all, im just saying that in the age of modern terrorism, other groups can and do get targetted, and have been targetted a lot more than we have.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and as i have said, and which you seem not to notice, we don't have much of a reason to fear it since we are adequately protected and the likelihood of such a thing happening is so small anyway ... .

Good: then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

im not denying it at all, im just saying that in the age of modern terrorism, other groups can and do get targetted, and have been targetted a lot more than we have.

What do you mean by 'modern terrorism'?

Jews in israel have been targetted more than most.

 

[frogwoman]

Good: then you have nothing to worry about.

if we're talking about a suicide bomber walking into a synagogue in the uk and detonating a bomb, then no we dont...not at all ... if on the other hand you're talking about lax security on the transport networks, then we obviously do, don't we? (as 7/7 showed)

What do you mean by 'modern terrorism'?

the ways terrorists use these days, of conducting their campaigns, in small groups or on their own, using bombs and what have you, not state terrorism or attacks by rampaging mobs whipped up by hysterical stories of blood libels and sensationalism in the press...

there are so many groups which could be called terrorist, most of them don't target jews and the majority of them don't have anything to do with religion, and i'm sure some of those people barely know what a jew is...

Jews in israel have been targetted more than most.

one could say the same about catholics in ireland ... but a catholic in any other country was never any more or less likely to get blown up by protestant terrorists than anyone else, were they? and the same goes the other way round...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gypsies and jews are not in the same category.

What "category" would that be?
I don't remember defining any "categories", Johnny.
Perhaps you're exhibiting a little bias here, no?

Jews have been viewed by christians as the killers of christ. That has given them a special 'status' in western christian countries that doesn't need repeating.

If it doesn't need to be repeated then why repeat it?
Narcissism?

Johnny, you really need to read a little European history before making your pontifications.

Gypsies, like Jews, suffered en masse banishment from many European countries.

Gypsies, like Jews, suffered (and continue to suffer) pogroms.

Gypsies, like Jews, had their property expropriated arbitrarily by the states they resided in.

etc, etc, etc.

I haven't claimed anything that isn't a matter of historical record, and I haven't claimed a "parity of suffering", I merely outlined fact.

That you don't like these facts is your problem, not mine.

 

[ViolentPanda]

the ways terrorists use these days, of conducting their campaigns, in small groups or on their own, using bombs and what have you, not state terrorism or attacks by rampaging mobs whipped up by hysterical stories of blood libels and sensationalism in the press...

I mentioned in a reply to ninjaboy the other day that unfortunately "suicide bombs" are a sad but inevitable result of assymetric warfare in particular cultures. By this I DON'T mean Muslim cultures, I mean cultures where external or internal oppression encourages nihilism. People attribute the genesis of "suicide bombing" to Muslims, but as far as the 20th century is concerned, Japanese followers of Shinto beat them to it by 30 years.

there are so many groups which could be called terrorist, most of them don't target jews and the majority of them don't have anything to do with religion, and i'm sure some of those people barely know what a jew is...

In fact most "terrorist" grouping are minorities fighting internal oppression brought about through ethnic tensions, rather than religious ones, Northern Ireland being an example of what happens when you have both sets of tensions present.

one could say the same about catholics in ireland ... but a catholic in any other country was never any more or less likely to get blown up by protestant terrorists than anyone else, were they? and the same goes the other way round...

Yep.
AS you have probably noticed, some people tend to be selective in choosing their examples. These people only ever appear to look at examples that suit their preconceived bias.