Palestinian group threatens to attack Jewish targets abroad

[frogwoman]

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,

yeah, loads of other cultures and situations have produced suicide bombers.

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.

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Often, the most radical individuals are people who have adopted a cause in later life and are prepared to die for it, and haven't actually experienced the oppression themselves, they identify with people who have.

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.

yeah, although obviously not all of them ...

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.

i dont think its "some people" - i think we all do it to some extent, it's a case of being aware of it and trying to limit it whenever possible .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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)



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...



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...

If I were jewish in this world, I'd always keep a small fire of concern burning somewhere in the back of my psyche, just for self-preservation purposes.

I know you're jewish, and maybe you don't see it the same way, and who am I to tell you how to live?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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

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.

IMO, gypsies do not occupy the same place in the christian conscious as do jews. You can agree or disagree with that. As stated earlier, jews have the dubious honour of being the 'bad guys' in christianity's biggest story. Gypsies were victimized through history, but imo, almost as an afterthought, due to their being 'aliens' in the community, but they never came in for the same institutionalized ostracism that jews did.

I can recall a time when local golf country clubs wouldn't admit jewish members; I believe that some social organizations, like the Masons, still exclude jews. In NA at least, for the longest time, organizations like law firms etc, would break down on religious lines: there wouldn't be a jew at a non-jewish firm.

This organizational prejudice didn't apply to gypsies, I suppose because they weren't so numerous, but also because they just weren't thought about.

Finally, I don't really get the point you're making. Is it that because gypsies were victimized, the victimization of jews was somehow not as bad as it's made out to be?

 

[nino_savatte]

IMO, gypsies do not occupy the same place in the christian conscious as do jews. You can agree or disagree with that. As stated earlier, jews have the dubious honour of being the 'bad guys' in christianity's biggest story. Gypsies were victimized through history, but imo, almost as an afterthought, due to their being 'aliens' in the community, but they never came in for the same institutionalized ostracism that jews did.

I can recall a time when local golf country clubs wouldn't admit jewish members; I believe that some social organizations, like the Masons, still exclude jews. In NA at least, for the longest time, organizations like law firms etc, would break down on religious lines: there wouldn't be a jew at a non-jewish firm.

This organizational prejudice didn't apply to gypsies, I suppose because they weren't so numerous, but also because they just weren't thought about.

Finally, I don't really get the point you're making. Is it that because gypsies were victimized, the victimization of jews was somehow not as bad as it's made out to be?

Well that's where you're wrong (and even though I know you daren't reply), if you care to look for yourself you will see that Xtians have persecuted Gypsies because of their Otherness.

Rumors were spread in medieval times that the Roma were descended from a sexual encounter between a Roma woman and Satan. Christians believed that a conspiracy of blacksmiths, wizards and women had been organized to attack the Church. Since many Roma were blacksmiths, the conspiracy theory expanded to involve the Romani. Another belief was that Roma forged the nails used in Christ's crucifixion. The Roma countered with the rumor that a Roma attempted to steal the nails so that Christ could not be crucified, but was only able to grab one.


The Christian genocide against Witches during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance was also directed against the Roma. The courts seized and imprisoned them in Witches' prisons, often without even bothering to record their names.

The Diet of Augsburg ruled that Christians could legally kill Roma. Meanwhile, the courts were closed to the Roma who were injured by Christians

http://www.religioustolerance.org/roma.htm

You're not the bright spark you think you are.

 

[frogwoman]

If I were jewish in this world, I'd always keep a small fire of concern burning somewhere in the back of my psyche, just for self-preservation purposes.

i'm not concerned because i believe that our community is DOING ENOUGH to guard against a threat which is at the end of the day absolutely tiny.

ok to use another example ... if you go on holiday for a few days, you lock all the doors from the inside, and take every precaution, you get neighbours to watch over the house, come in and feed the cat, etc, you keep a few lights on to make it look like people are there, you have insurance cover if anything DOES go wrong...and then you dont really have anything to worry about thats not to say the threat suddenly isn't there, just that you have minimised it and you can go off and enjoy yourself.

I know you're jewish, and maybe you don't see it the same way, and who am I to tell you how to live?

look ... i have experienced anti-semitism and all sorts of other nasty shit, im certainly not complacent about it, and im maybe a bit over sensitive about that kind of shit as im sure you know ... but im not going to stop doing what i want to do just because of something that in all likelihood isn't going to happen. period.

i see no reason to become paranoid about entering my own place of worship simply because of some article on the internet ffs ...

im far more worried about being a victim of crime than these terrorist scare stories which will almost certainly not come to anything and only serve to promote attitudes which we REALLY don't fucking need now ...

 

[nino_savatte]

Here's [something else] Johnny!

What's all this about "Gyspies [Roma] not occupying the same place in the minds of Christians as the Jews"?

What is this nonsense that Johnny spouts? No wonder he ignores me! Would someone show this to our Canadian cousin?

Christianity Today, Week of December 4

Norway's Lutherans Apologize to Gypsies
Church asks forgiveness for "the injustices and infringements" committed against the Romany people.

By Bjarke Larsen | posted 12/8/00
Norway's biggest church, the (Lutheran) Church of Norway, has apologized to the nation's Romanies—once known as gypsies—for its ill treatment of their people in the past.

The apology was made November 16 at the church's general synod after being approved in a unanimous vote by church representatives. It was then accepted by national representatives of the Romany people who attended the synod.

The apology states: "The general synod 2000 apologizes and asks the Romanies for forgiveness for the injustices and infringements [of their rights] committed against their people by the church."

The number of Romanies in this Scandinavian nation is a matter of dispute, but the official representative of the nation's Romanies puts the figure at 20,000 out of a total population of 4.3 million.

Romanies in Norway were persecuted for many decades, particularly early in the 20th century. Laws were passed in an attempt to make these nomadic people settle in one place, and several institutions tried—often using harsh methods—to forcibly assimilate Romanies into Norwegian society and eradicate their cultural heritage, including their language, music, and religion.

Many of the organizations involved in the suppression of Romany culture were run by the church or managed by clergy. The most prominent was the Norwegian Mission among the Homeless which is now believed to have been responsible for at least 40 percent of forced sterilizations of Romany women, mainly in the 1930s and 1940s.

Up to 300 women were sterilized against their will, and about 1,700 children were taken away from their mothers and adopted by other families or placed in children's homes. This process continued until the 1970s.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/149/56.0.html

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

the article link has disappeared
do you have another source?

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

Erm... nope. Not the same article.

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

Thanks for the tip.

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.

That's utter bullshit. It says:

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.

Islamic Jihad, also said they supported violence to free more than 8,000 prisoners held by Israel, but neither explicitly backed attacks on Jews abroad.

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://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...e+Israel+to+release"&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Kinda changes the 'feel' of the piece, don'tchafink?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Erm... nope. Not the same article.

Thanks for the tip.

That's utter bullshit. It says: http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...e+Israel+to+release"&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Kinda changes the 'feel' of the piece, don'tchafink?

The three paragraphs as presented: they don't really make sense, do they? In two,they talk about calling for attacks, in the third, they talk about not explicitly calling for attacks.

 

[nino_savatte]

The three paragraphs as presented: they don't really make sense, do they? In two,they talk about calling for attacks, in the third, they talk about not explicitly calling for attacks.

You dance a merry dance, Canuke. care to tell us exactly what is being said here?

 

[frogwoman]

IMO, gypsies do not occupy the same place in the christian conscious as do jews. You can agree or disagree with that. As stated earlier, jews have the dubious honour of being the 'bad guys' in christianity's biggest story. Gypsies were victimized through history, but imo, almost as an afterthought, due to their being 'aliens' in the community, but they never came in for the same institutionalized ostracism that jews did.

I can recall a time when local golf country clubs wouldn't admit jewish members; I believe that some social organizations, like the Masons, still exclude jews. In NA at least, for the longest time, organizations like law firms etc, would break down on religious lines: there wouldn't be a jew at a non-jewish firm.

This organizational prejudice didn't apply to gypsies, I suppose because they weren't so numerous, but also because they just weren't thought about.

Finally, I don't really get the point you're making. Is it that because gypsies were victimized, the victimization of jews was somehow not as bad as it's made out to be?

this is missing the point isn't it, the original article, which you posted was about palestinian terrorism and the threat that they MIGHT attack jewish targets overseas.

it wasn't anything to do with christianity, it was about palestinian militants, and what people commonly think of as "ISLAMIC" terrorism.

our history in europe, and what still happens in certain countries around the world, is entirely irrelevent in this case, isn't it? the fact that christians have persecuted jews has nothing to do with the likelihood of synagogues being attacked by palestinian militants outside israel. NOTHING.

i have read some terrible stories of jews being tortured and killed by police in countries in central asia and a few parts of eastern europe. i see no reason why a jihadi would go there, because a) these places have no connection to iraq or the israel palestine conflict and b) muslims get exactly the same treatment, and frequently it is jewish charities helping those people, to attack a bunch of already vulnerable people would be completely counterproductive and only serve to justify their government's war on terror.

when you look at the amount of jews killed by terrorists in the 20th century and the amount killed by the governments they lived under for 2000 years, the numbers don't really add up do they? it is still state terrorism and media-driven hysteria that is our biggest enemy, always has been always will be, and why should we be taken in by paranoid prejudice and let them do that to someone else?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

it is still state terrorism and media-driven hysteria that is our biggest enemy, always has been always will be, and why should we be taken in by paranoid prejudice and let them do that to someone else?

Word.

 

[frogwoman]

thanks ... well it has to be said doesn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

IMO, gypsies do not occupy the same place in the christian conscious as do jews. You can agree or disagree with that. As stated earlier, jews have the dubious honour of being the 'bad guys' in christianity's biggest story. Gypsies were victimized through history, but imo, almost as an afterthought, due to their being 'aliens' in the community, but they never came in for the same institutionalized ostracism that jews did.

You say "imo", and this is obviously the case or you'd know that the first banishment laws issued in Europe were roughly contemporaneous for Hews and Gypsies, and had the same punishment for disobediance; death.

I can recall a time when local golf country clubs wouldn't admit jewish members; I believe that some social organizations, like the Masons, still exclude jews. In NA at least, for the longest time, organizations like law firms etc, would break down on religious lines: there wouldn't be a jew at a non-jewish firm.

Masons admit any faith. The only people they tend to have qualms about are catholics, and that's purely because Catholics are doctrinally prohibited from membership. That said, I believe it's left as a matter of conscience.

This organizational prejudice didn't apply to gypsies, I suppose because they weren't so numerous, but also because they just weren't thought about.

It's because Gypsies are Gypsies, they are nomadic, they don't "do" country clubs and lawyering (which proves there's at least one honest race left on earth).

Finally, I don't really get the point you're making. Is it that because gypsies were victimized, the victimization of jews was somehow not as bad as it's made out to be?

No, the point I'm making is there IS NOT a heirarchy of suffering, and that NO ONE has the right to try and establish one.

Unfortunately, some organisations that purport to represent world Jewry disagree.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You say "imo", and this is obviously the case or you'd know that the first banishment laws issued in Europe were roughly contemporaneous for Hews and Gypsies, and had the same punishment for disobediance; death.

Masons admit any faith. The only people they tend to have qualms about are catholics, and that's purely because Catholics are doctrinally prohibited from membership. That said, I believe it's left as a matter of conscience.

It's because Gypsies are Gypsies, they are nomadic, they don't "do" country clubs and lawyering (which proves there's at least one honest race left on earth).



No, the point I'm making is there IS NOT a heirarchy of suffering, and that NO ONE has the right to try and establish one.

Unfortunately, some organisations that purport to represent world Jewry disagree.

I admit to using the masons as an example without being totally versed in their rules, because I expected that you'd recognized the masons, but perhaps not the social organizations that were exclusionary in NA, like the Elks, the Rotary, etc. Also, what these organizations might say in their constitution, could be different from what was actually done in practice.

As for the gypsies, yes, they were nomadic, and didn't try to become part of society. That's the reason they often fell below the radar. Jews were an adjunct to christian society, living in the same towns, having commerce with christians, for the last two millenia. Thus, they were there to be seen, and there to be discriminated against in a systematic manner.

 

[frogwoman]

the rotarary club isnt exclusionist, or it isn't here, anyway

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the rotarary club isnt exclusionist, or it isn't here, anyway

None of these clubs are exclusionist here either, now. If you refer to the post where I first brought this up, I was talking about a time within my memory when jews were excluded from lots of different things that they aren't excluded from now. It was a comparison between the treatment of jews and of gypsies.

 

[frogwoman]

yeah, fair enough ... there are still places like Lord's cricket ground that wont admit women i still don't see the relevance of all this to the topic though, or why all of this state-sponsored discrimination means that jews are more likely to be blown up in a terrorist attack? the two are totally separate issues

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yeah, fair enough ... there are still places like Lord's cricket ground that wont admit women i still don't see the relevance of all this to the topic though, or why all of this state-sponsored discrimination means that jews are more likely to be blown up in a terrorist attack? the two are totally separate issues

If the Elks Club didn't admit jews, or Lord's Cricket won't admit women, how is that state-sponsored discrimination?

 

[frogwoman]

ok, maybe "sanctioned" would be a better word ... but it's permitted by the state, they are/were OK with it and not doing anything to stop it, and in fact many of the people who are part of these organisations and want to keep those policies that way are in positions of power or at least in a position to exercise influence.

and you still haven't given me a proper reply to my question ... oppressive policies and aggressive propaganda by those in a position to exercise power, has been our biggest enemy. it destroyed countless people, and crushed their will to live, as well as physically destroying millions of others. this still happens in many countries around the world, and it is of far more concern to me than some two-bit terrorist boasting about how they're going to do something which is almost impossible .

we see the same thing which happened, and still happens, to our community, we see the seeds of it in propaganda in newspapers, on the internet, and coming out of the mouths of our government leaders, in selective reporting, and somehow being concerned that all is not what it seems, that we are being misled about the true extent of this threat, that it is being exaggerated, somehow that's being complacent, somehow it means that i don't treat anti-semitism seriously enough? well thats bollocks and you know it, you know how strongly i feel about that shit ..

im not saying that anyone is planning to kill/discriminate against muslims, but various factors have formed a climate where people feel OK about treating them a little less equally than everyone else, about saying things behind closed doors that theyd never ever say in public, and then acutally saying them in public... fair enough, i can appreciate the need for a debate about immigration or about terrorism, but it's gone way beyond that when you get to the stage where people you always thought were sound are spouting this media-induced garbage...when people think that parading with a bunch of distasteful cartoons is a "defence of free speech" ffs ...

and given our history, i am right to be concerned about such things ... can you tell me why i should think any differently?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and you still haven't given me a proper reply to my question ... oppressive policies and aggressive propaganda by those in a position to exercise power, has been our biggest enemy. it destroyed countless people, and crushed their will to live, as well as physically destroying millions of others. this still happens in many countries around the world, and it is of far more concern to me than some two-bit terrorist boasting about how they're going to do something which is almost impossible .

My answer is that I don't totally agree with you. State sanctioned or what have you oppression of jews has certainly happened, but that is just one aspect of the treatment of jews. The 'propriety' of mistreating jews arises from a religious basis. Thus, while you might end up with whole christian states acting to oppress jews, you can also find individual and small group actions aimed at the same oppression. IMO, while it might not always be manifest, the potential for the mistreatment of jews is always extant within christianity.

I also agree that the threat from potential christian oppression has a much longer history, and arguably still has greater potential, than does the current islamic attacks against jews. However, that doesn't mean that such islamic attacks can't be virulent in the short run, and as such, they need to be taken seriously.

 

[frogwoman]

which they are, so it's all good ...

 

[nino_savatte]

I admit to using the masons as an example without being totally versed in their rules, because I expected that you'd recognized the masons, but perhaps not the social organizations that were exclusionary in NA, like the Elks, the Rotary, etc. Also, what these organizations might say in their constitution, could be different from what was actually done in practice.

As for the gypsies, yes, they were nomadic, and didn't try to become part of society. That's the reason they often fell below the radar. Jews were an adjunct to christian society, living in the same towns, having commerce with christians, for the last two millenia. Thus, they were there to be seen, and there to be discriminated against in a systematic manner.

You're not doing very well here, Canuck. In fact, I detect a little chicanery.

There isn't anything in your post that suggests to me that you know what you are talking about. The last paragraph being a good case in point.

 

[frogwoman]

My answer is that I don't totally agree with you. State sanctioned or what have you oppression of jews has certainly happened, but that is just one aspect of the treatment of jews.

yes, but it is carried out by or with the approval of people with a huge amount of power, and therefore by its very definition is going to be much more insiduous, widespread and harmful. in those cases the state either isn't actively trying to bring those people to justice or is instigating the attacks, so there is no protection for a person who is treated this way, whereas terrorism is a form of deviance and it is taken extremely seriously.

The 'propriety' of mistreating jews arises from a religious basis.

No, religion is only a cover. It's about power and control, it's about fear, it's about terrorising people until they give up or die and they no longer pose whatever threat you say they do. why do you think jews and witches were persecuted in the middle ages? it wasn't because they "worshipped the devil" or anything like that. it was because they were challenging the way that the monarch, and the church, expected them to live. the jews knew how to read, and they could tell people what the bible really said, whereas the church was only using the bible to control everyone. its no surprise that alot of the christians who were executed as witches were really early protesters against the state.

Thus, while you might end up with whole christian states acting to oppress jews, you can also find individual and small group actions aimed at the same oppression.

true, but you also have to look at where the motive for that oppression is coming from, whether it's a really bitter bastard who was hard done by by a jewish person or something, or whether it's a result of what they've read in a newspaper or a pamphlet or what people they know are saying, the attitudes in society at the time, and you have to ask how these attitudes are created, whether it's a question of what's reported in the media, what's left out, what celebrities and business people and politicians do and don't say and do. what makes a crowd of people think it's ok to go and burn a gypsy family out of their homes or throw a brick through the window of a synagogue? what and who, creates the conditions for that to be acceptable to them?

IMO, while it might not always be manifest, the potential for the mistreatment of jews is always extant within christianity.

It can happen to, or be done by, anyone, regardless of what their religion is. oppression can exist anywhere where powerful people are furthering their self interest at the expense of others, and don't give a shit about anyone else.

I also agree that the threat from potential christian oppression has a much longer history, and arguably still has greater potential, than does the current islamic attacks against jews.

To my knowledge there have only been a few such attacks outside israel, and a lot of those attacks are in under developed countries where they are not given enough protection, for whatever reason, not necessarily because they don't like jews but because of a lack of money, or because they weren't expecting it. argentina, tunisia and turkey ffs - these aren't exactly the richest of countries we're talking about.

after 9-11 however i don't think there's a single place on earth which doesn't take the risk of terrorism inside its borders, whatever kind it is, seriously, but there ARE countries, some christian and some muslim, where jews are treated a lot worse than most other social groups, apart from people who go to "banned churches" or mosques or belong to political parties who seem to pose too much of a threat.

terrorists use terrorism to achieve their goals because they don't have many more effective ways of doing so. they have no power whereas the government, the media and big business all do.

However, that doesn't mean that such islamic attacks can't be virulent in the short run, and as such, they need to be taken seriously.

I don't recall saying we shouldn't take them seriously, only that it's too small a risk to become overly concerned about, and we are doing quite enough as it is. claims like the ones in your original article still need to be treated with scepticism.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes, but it is carried out by or with the approval of people with a huge amount of power, and therefore by its very definition is going to be much more insiduous, widespread and harmful. in those cases the state either isn't actively trying to bring those people to justice or is instigating the attacks, so there is no protection for a person who is treated this way, whereas terrorism is a form of deviance and it is taken extremely seriously. .

I'd agree with that.

No, religion is only a cover. It's about power and control, it's about fear, it's about terrorising people until they give up or die and they no longer pose whatever threat you say they do. why do you think jews and witches were persecuted in the middle ages? it wasn't because they "worshipped the devil" or anything like that. it was because they were challenging the way that the monarch, and the church, expected them to live. the jews knew how to read, and they could tell people what the bible really said, whereas the church was only using the bible to control everyone. its no surprise that alot of the christians who were executed as witches were really early protesters against the state. .

I think this is a little on the revisionist side, perhaps the marxist view of history. For the most part, I don't think that the nobility etc were all that intelligent; it seems likely that when some of these princes, and therefore their subjects, converted to christianity, an easy way to show piety was to kill the 'enemies' of christ: the jews.

Also during the Russian pogroms, or the massacres of jews during the crusades, the people being killed were mostly jewish peasants, not intellectual subversives. The basis for this, imo, was religious.

true, but you also have to look at where the motive for that oppression is coming from, whether it's a really bitter bastard who was hard done by by a jewish person or something, or whether it's a result of what they've read in a newspaper or a pamphlet or what people they know are saying, the attitudes in society at the time, and you have to ask how these attitudes are created, whether it's a question of what's reported in the media, what's left out, what celebrities and business people and politicians do and don't say and do. what makes a crowd of people think it's ok to go and burn a gypsy family out of their homes or throw a brick through the window of a synagogue? what and who, creates the conditions for that to be acceptable to them? .

I think the conditions come from generation after generation being brought up to hate.

It can happen to, or be done by, anyone, regardless of what their religion is. oppression can exist anywhere where powerful people are furthering their self interest at the expense of others, and don't give a shit about anyone else. .

Theoretically yes, but as it turns out, it has happened more consistently to jews over the course of two millenia, than most anyone else living in christian societies.

.[/QUOTE]

 

[rachamim18]

Ready to roll...

TAE: Sure it makes sense to attack Jews who CHOOSE NOT to live in Israel. You see, most militant Arab groups hate Jews, not just Zionists or Israelis. It is in their Charters and mission statements.

As someone else already told you, the premise of the article is about promises to attack Jews in general, all around the world, in order to reach their objective of freeing Arab prisoners from Israeli prisons.

Panda: Jews no longer suffer from pogroms and pointed violence? Either are Roma or Sinti, but both so called "Gypsies" and Jews DO suffer from hate crimes.

Tangent: Yes, your article IS correct, Israel DOES have a vested interest in war with Iran...but then so does the rest of the world if you think about it. Nuclear weapons and deluded maniacs are never really a good combination in most peoples' minds.


Frogwoman: Well, you have made one of the stupidest comments I have seen in a while. first, let me explain that I rarely play that personality game but this commnent of yours needs to be confronted: "Frogwoman does not think terrorism is the bogeymen that people make it out to be." What were you thinking?

Israel is manipulating the story? You mean the story is untrue? Israel is well within its rights to seek to publicise the issue.

Why would militants go such places? Easy. Ever hear of the "3 Corners" region of South America? It is the back country area where Argentina, Barasil, and Paraguay. In this forsaken place, whole communites of Arabs have sprung up. In fact, it was in this area that the Hezbollah operatives spent some time before rendezvouzing with their Iranian Intel handlers and bombing the Buenos Aries Jewish Community Center .

Or how about south Florida where the USF professor was found guilty of supporting terrorism and of specifically supporting al Akhsa. Or the Arab grocers in Florida, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, Dalla, and right here in NYC who were all found guilty in seaprate conspiracies involving bootlegged tobbascco products?

I could go and on but safe to say, "Jihad" is a problem affecting the entire world.

As for attacking Jews in areas where they are already persecuted, nonsense. While there have been times in the past where Argentian culture was distinctly anti-Jewish in thought and deed but for 20 odd years preceeding the bombing, things were as bright there as they had ever been.

Yes, Spain only had one major attack, as did London and France. But, there have been countless little attacks...digging up corpses and imapling their anuses with sharpneed sticks as in southern France, to beating religious Jews in ther London Underground, to stabbing Jewish youth in Spain.

 

[rachamim18]

Part two...

Panda: While I am loathe to get caught up in trying to compare the suffering of different groups, the fact of the matter is that the Jews alone have beebn ,arked for totakl exrtinction [at least in modern history]. Roma and Sinti [and Pavee as well] have suffered terribly but, the numbers do not compare.

Canuck: Roma and Sinti actually received worse discrimination than Jews, just not the same amount of victimisation in genocidal campaigns. To this day most areas of Europe bar them from settling or even staying overnight [for the minority who still hold true to their nomadic ways.

Frogwwoman: What other cultures have produced "suicide bombers?"

"Terrorosim is a small enough threat?" Tell that to the victims, the survivors, and the witnesses. It is real and whether you wish to face it or not, it threatens all peace loving people.

I had to laugh at your description of Argentina and turkey as "undevelpoed nations." Both have living standards comprable to most of Europe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Canuck: Roma and Sinti actually received worse discrimination than Jews, just not the same amount of victimisation in genocidal campaigns. To this day most areas of Europe bar them from settling or even staying overnight [for the minority who still hold true to their nomadic ways..

It's arguable that the discrimination against gypsies relates to their lifestyle. If they bought houses and got steady jobs, the discrimination would likely disappear. The discrimination against jews is based on who they are, not on what they do.

 

[frogwoman]

I think this is a little on the revisionist side, perhaps the marxist view of history. For the most part, I don't think that the nobility etc were all that intelligent; it seems likely that when some of these princes, and therefore their subjects, converted to christianity, an easy way to show piety was to kill the 'enemies' of christ: the jews.

and it was done to show loyalty to the church.

you're forgetting that the church then wasn't anything like a church is now. it influenced foreign policy, decided when to go to war, it collected taxes, it was people's only source of information about the outside world, as most of them couldn't read and there was almost no transport out of the villages. people met, socialised, and did virtually everything at church, and they relied on priests to tell them about politics and about the news as there WAS nobody else to talk to about it. it provided support for the poor and travellers, it was everything to a hospital to a school and more, it owned most of the country's wealth, and it was a massive source of employment.

faced with that level of power, the heads of states didn't have any choice. and don't forget that some people are predisposed to be prejudiced, it wasn't necessarily that the church and the state created that prejudice, but they certainly made it acceptable in society.

peasants in those days led lives full of suffering. most people died under the age of 30, they rarely had enough to eat, and they were forced to work all day in the fields for the nobility. there was almost no way out of the feudal system and those that did manage to get out became as hard and ruthless as anyone else, because they had to in order to survive.

the anti-semitism, the superstitions, the paranoia about having babies stolen and families being cursed, isn't as crazy as it seems, because those things DID happen to people, they didn't understand disease and so children often got fevers and died without any explanation. there was a lot of anger about the way they were being treated, and in order to stop these turning into something more serious, those in power would blame the jews in order to stop them recognising their true cause and turning against THEM. of course, it wasn't as though some people didn't want to believe it, the jews were different, they behaved and ate differently, by definition they didn't go to church, and were excluded from the jobs that "normal" people did. people were obviously prejudiced against them - but it isn't the whole story.

Also during the Russian pogroms, or the massacres of jews during the crusades, the people being killed were mostly jewish peasants, not intellectual subversives. The basis for this, imo, was religious.

they didn't have to be intellectual subversives. you didn't have to be particularly educated or wealthy or ideological to be a target.

they could just be a normal person, living a normal life (for the time) but one who couldn't, because of their religion, participate in the church, and had a different view on things than many people who did.

divide and rule...this is literally what they did, by forbidding the jews to live in the same areas and do the same jobs as other people, thereby creating a distance between them and the other people, breeding resentment, and stopping average christians and jews from having any sort of social contact with each other.

I think the conditions come from generation after generation being brought up to hate.

yeah - it wasn't as though some people weren't prejudiced already, but there is a huge difference between a culture where these things are considered socially unacceptable and one where it is normal, it is ok. because most people in the uk who are slightly racist, for example, would be shocked if a black person was murdered, say, in their town. there's a big step from simply being racist and not caring about that kind of thing, and to me it shows that conditions were desperate and certain people were very quick to capitalise on it in order to strengthen their grip on power.

Theoretically yes, but as it turns out, it has happened more consistently to jews over the course of two millenia, than most anyone else living in christian societies.

.

EVERYWHERE where there's oppression, you will find that it is accompanied by a campaign of lies, by ignorance and by those who play on other people's fears and resentments in order to make themselves look good - and it doesn't have to be a christian society - the same thing has happened in africa, in the middle east, and in india with the BJP's campaigns against the sikhs, for example.

 

[rachamim18]

Hmmm...

You know, that is a great point and one I never considered.

 

[frogwoman]

It's arguable that the discrimination against gypsies relates to their lifestyle. If they bought houses and got steady jobs, the discrimination would likely disappear.

No it wouldn't, and even where they have, it hasn't.