Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Palestinian group threatens to attack Jewish targets abroad

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

the tamil tigers?

"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 agree, but it doesn't happen very often, does it? if it's as big a threat as everyone says, why aren't we seeing bombs explode in europe and america every day?!!

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

I didn't say they were undeveloped, i said they were under-developed, and there is still a huge, huge amount of poverty, even though more people are wealthy now in both places than they have ever been.

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.

if you read my posts, you'd find out, wouldn't you?

and i never said that israel was necessarily the one manipulating the story, did i?

and i don't think it's necessarily "not true", and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand - but in this country and most western countries, the jewish community is NOT in danger from these people.
 
frogwoman said:
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. .

Check out the tensions between church and state that led to such things as the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, or the founding of the Church of England by Henry. It was never a cut and dried case of the church spoke, and the state listened. There was a constant power struggle between the two.
 
frogwoman said:
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.

You're right, it isn't the whole story. Part of the story was that the christians considered the jews to be the killers of Christ. So when they were looking for a scapegoat, the jews were the 'logical' choice.
 
frogwoman said:
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..

Yes, and antisemitism was considered normal in Europe through almost all of the christian era.
 
frogwoman said:
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.

Of course that's true; but why do you deny that the jews have been singled out as a target for discrimination throughout the christian period in the west?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Check out the tensions between church and state that led to such things as the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, or the founding of the Church of England by Henry. It was never a cut and dried case of the church spoke, and the state listened. There was a constant power struggle between the two.

yeah, that's also true, and it differed where you went, England was never influenced as much by the church as other places were - but their (economic and foreign policy) interests did coincide a great deal, and the church exerted a huge amount of influence on the governments of the day. it's true that the state didn't always listen to the church as well, even on this stuff - there was some pope in the 13th century that told them to stop persecuting people and it was too convenient for the reasons ive said so they didn't listen :(
 
frogwoman said:
yeah, that's also true, and it differed where you went, England was never influenced as much by the church as other places were - but their (economic and foreign policy) interests did coincide a great deal, and the church exerted a huge amount of influence on the governments of the day. it's true that the state didn't always listen to the church as well, even on this stuff - there was some pope in the 13th century that told them to stop persecuting people and it was too convenient for the reasons ive said so they didn't listen :(


"Frederick II (December 26, 1194 – December 13, 1250), Holy Roman Emperor of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, was pretender to the title of King of the Romans from 1212, unopposed holder of that monarchy from 1215, and Holy Roman Emperor from 1220 until his death in 1250. He was also King of Sicily, from 1198 to 1250, where he was raised and lived most of his life (his mother, Constance of Sicily, was the daughter of Roger II of Sicily). He is also referred to as Frederick I of Sicily. His empire was frequently at war with the Papal States, so it is not surprising that he was excommunicated twice. Pope Gregory IX went so far as to call him the anti-Christ. After his death the idea of his second coming where he would rule a 1000-year reich took hold, possibly in part because of this."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
 
Benedict VI, Pope from 973 to 974), was born in Rome as the son of Hildebrand and was chosen with great ceremony and installed as Pope under the protection of the Emperor Otto I (936–973) on January 19, 973. During his pontificate Benedict VI confirmed the privileges of some of the monasteries and churches. On the death of the Emperor the people of Rome confined him in the Castel Sant'Angelo. After a period of less than two months the Pope was strangled by order of Crescentius II, the son of the notorious Theodora, to prevent his release by Sicco, the imperial envoy of Otto II (973–983).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_VI
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You're right, it isn't the whole story. Part of the story was that the christians considered the jews to be the killers of Christ. So when they were looking for a scapegoat, the jews were the 'logical' choice.

this is true - but that's all it was, a logical choice, and nothing to do with religion itself - that was merely a cover.

and it is said, that jews are a "canary in the coal mine" - the first sign of danger in a mine is when the canary dies, because the gas has reached toxic levels - meaning that anti-semitism is a precursor to civil war or another kind of conflict and social turmoil - which as im sure you know, happened A LOT in europe during the middle ages.

the reason for this is when people got discontented, they tended to take it out on the jews first, and the government would encourage this as it would mean that THEY wouldn't be the targets or be overthrown. when they started getting unpopular, they would start up witch hunts or pogroms or whatever they could, so that their own position was strengthened.

when the english king kicked the jews out of england in 1290, he was in the middle of the crusades which were turning very unpopular and a lot of ordinary people were dying. it makes sense if you think about it, to turn people's attention to a scapegoat so they won't care about you.

and all the indoctrination and half-truths DID lead people to believe that jews were better off and more priveliged than everyone else, so when there was a revolution, they would be the first to be attacked, in many cases.

Yes, and antisemitism was considered normal in Europe through almost all of the christian era.

well, people passed it onto their kids over several generations, and it was less likely to be dismissed as crap because there were so many things people didn't know about the way their society functioned, about the causes of crop failure and people getting ill, as well as the fact that yes, the priests played up the idea that jews had killed jesus, and used this as a justification for their hatred, and to prevent anyone befriending a jew, taking them seriously or simply talking to them.

life was very very hard back then and when people are angry and desperate the irrational side of their character tends to come out more strongly, especially when it becomes socially acceptable as there are people with influence telling them they're right and spreading more bullshit lies.

Of course that's true; but why do you deny that the jews have been singled out as a target for discrimination throughout the christian period in the west?

I haven't been denying it at all - quite the opposite.
 
frogwoman said:
this is true - but that's all it was, a logical choice, and nothing to do with religion itself - that was merely a cover. .

It has everything to do with religion. They were discriminated against because they were members of the jewish faith.
 
frogwoman said:
and it is said, that jews are a "canary in the coal mine" - the first sign of danger in a mine is when the canary dies, because the gas has reached toxic levels - meaning that anti-semitism is a precursor to civil war or another kind of conflict and social turmoil - which as im sure you know, happened A LOT in europe during the middle ages. .

Then explain the anti semitism of North America that has existed up to the present time.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
"Frederick II (December 26, 1194 – December 13, 1250), Holy Roman Emperor of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, was pretender to the title of King of the Romans from 1212, unopposed holder of that monarchy from 1215, and Holy Roman Emperor from 1220 until his death in 1250. He was also King of Sicily, from 1198 to 1250, where he was raised and lived most of his life (his mother, Constance of Sicily, was the daughter of Roger II of Sicily). He is also referred to as Frederick I of Sicily. His empire was frequently at war with the Papal States, so it is not surprising that he was excommunicated twice. Pope Gregory IX went so far as to call him the anti-Christ. After his death the idea of his second coming where he would rule a 1000-year reich took hold, possibly in part because of this."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

yeah, it happened.
 
rachamim18 said:
Panda: Jews no longer suffer from pogroms and pointed violence?
I haven't claimed that, I said that Gypsies "...still have to tolerate the casual murder and occasional pogroms that Jews no longer do", i.e. that in eastern Europe it is the "Gypsy" population that take the brunt of casual violence.
Either are Roma or Sinti, but both so called "Gypsies" and Jews DO suffer from hate crimes.
I haven't said they don't.
 
rachamim18 said:
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].
You may have noted that I wasn't just talking about "modern history" and neither was JC2. It's historical fact that the "Gypsies" were banished under punishment of death from most of the same locales at much the same time as were Jews.
Roma and Sinti [and Pavee as well] have suffered terribly but, the numbers do not compare.
The numbers of what, of deaths? Does it always get reduced to that with you, this childish "my suffering is greater than your suffering"?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
It has everything to do with religion. They were discriminated against because they were members of the jewish faith.

yep, and because of that, they couldn't fall under the church's influence and behaved in a different way, ate differently, did different things, etc.

Then explain the anti semitism of North America that has existed up to the present time.

it doesn't necessarily have to be a war - it could be an economic crisis.

the early settlers of the USA were people who were puritans from england, many of whom were very prejudiced, and fundamentalist christianity has played a very important part of the lives of many americans to this day. even if it didn't, they still picked up on that stuff and told it to their children who told it to theirs etc.

for a long time the US was an incredibly divided society with lots of people who were discriminated against simply because of race and because people wanted cheap labour and slaves. once you accept one it's psychologically easier to accept the other - this stuff goes hand in hand, and if someone's anti-semitic it's highly unlikely that they won't be prejudiced against other groups, too, and vice versa.

it still is incredibly divided, with billionaires and people who have almost nothing. jews in america have often been quite successful, so there is resentment because of that, but at the same time there's also the same feeling among many of the rich that they're not quite "one of us".

the early involvement of the jews in the civil rights movement and the anti-abolitionist movement before that made a lot of people fearful that their society and values were under threat, and that was played upon by those who wanted to keep the status quo as it was, and had a vested interest in doing so.

for a long time the kkk were completely socially acceptable, and they still are in some parts of america.

then there was the fact that stereotypes simply grew about due to jews being successful in commerce and money, as it was one of the only things they were allowed to do so they had become used to it, and many of them just carried on doing the same when they got to the states. a lot of them were very poor when they arrived and there was resentment due to immigration, and people just looked down on them coz they were poor.

in recent years there's been a resurgence of it, partly because anti-semites have been given an excuse by the state of israel and its conduct, partly because of the revival of fundamentalist christianity (which is in itself imo partly due to economic disillusionment and fear over where the individual and society is going), fears over immigration etc and the fact that the internet has allowed anti-semites to spout their views to a much wider audience.

oh, and i think america IS heading towards a serious economic and social crisis, and it's been coming for a very long time.
 
Frogwoman, I know you're relatively young; your knowledge and power of debate are admirable.

Try this on for size: you [i mean you personally] have accepted the position that Israel is behaving with unacceptable aggression toward the palestinians. You are anti-zionist.

In order to maintain that position, it is necessary for you to build an argument that although the jews have been mistreated in history, the mistreatment does not arise from any special or specific postion that the jews have held, but is instead similar to mistreatment suffered by various groups at various times.

It is necessary for you to construct this argument, because if you buy into the concept that the jews have been singled out for special mistreatment for the last two millenia, then the concept of zionism becomes understandable, desirable even for jews, and it becomes difficult for you to continue with your anti Israeli and anti zionist stance.


What do you think?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Frogwoman, I know you're relatively young; your knowledge and power of debate are admirable.

Try this on for size: you [i mean you personally] have accepted the position that Israel is behaving with unacceptable aggression toward the palestinians. You are anti-zionist.

In order to maintain that position, it is necessary for you to build an argument that although the jews have been mistreated in history, the mistreatment does not arise from any special or specific postion that the jews have held, but is instead similar to mistreatment suffered by various groups at various times.

It is necessary for you to construct this argument, because if you buy into the concept that the jews have been singled out for special mistreatment for the last two millenia, then the concept of zionism becomes understandable, desirable even for jews, and it becomes difficult for you to continue with your anti Israeli and anti zionist stance.


What do you think?
Anybody got a fucking clue what this idiot is ranting on about?

Gobble dee gook from start to finish.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Frogwoman, I know you're relatively young; your knowledge and power of debate are admirable.

Try this on for size: you [i mean you personally] have accepted the position that Israel is behaving with unacceptable aggression toward the palestinians. You are anti-zionist.

In order to maintain that position, it is necessary for you to build an argument that although the jews have been mistreated in history, the mistreatment does not arise from any special or specific postion that the jews have held, but is instead similar to mistreatment suffered by various groups at various times.

It is necessary for you to construct this argument, because if you buy into the concept that the jews have been singled out for special mistreatment for the last two millenia, then the concept of zionism becomes understandable, desirable even for jews, and it becomes difficult for you to continue with your anti Israeli and anti zionist stance.


What do you think?

i am not an anti-zionist.
i do think that jews have been singled out for special treatment by the state, for the reasons that i have said. i do understand that there is a need for jews to have a state because of what has happened in the past, and i think that a lot of anti-zionist viewpoints are on very dodgy ground. i do think that israel does have a right to defend its self within reason and i don't agree with the suicide bombings or any of that shit
but at the same time, what the israeli government has done to the palestinians makes me feel sick, and very very uncomfortable. we can do a lot better than this and g-d told us not to be violent, and to try and help people who were suffering, and killing is always absolutely wrong imo no matter who's doing it to who ...
im sorry if it seems that way to you but i'm not an anti-zionist and that isn't why im arguing this point, i'm just saying that all of these claims needed to be treated with scepitism as they could well be exaggerated and we need to ask why and for what purpose ...

do you understand?
 
vimto said:
Anybody got a fucking clue what this idiot is ranting on about?

Gobble dee gook from start to finish.

Note the way he twists people's words around. He's lower than a snake's belly is to the ground!
 
frogwoman said:
i am not an anti-zionist.
i do think that jews have been singled out for special treatment by the state, for the reasons that i have said. i do understand that there is a need for jews to have a state because of what has happened in the past, and i think that a lot of anti-zionist viewpoints are on very dodgy ground. i do think that israel does have a right to defend its self within reason and i don't agree with the suicide bombings or any of that shit
but at the same time, what the israeli government has done to the palestinians makes me feel sick, and very very uncomfortable. we can do a lot better than this and g-d told us not to be violent, and to try and help people who were suffering, and killing is always absolutely wrong imo no matter who's doing it to who ...
im sorry if it seems that way to you but i'm not an anti-zionist and that isn't why im arguing this point, i'm just saying that all of these claims needed to be treated with scepitism as they could well be exaggerated and we need to ask why and for what purpose ...

do you understand?

I think the way JC2 has patronised you here says an awful lot about him: he complains about other posters doing this sort of thing but isn't averse to dishing out similar treatment to others. One thing he hates is to be caught out in one of his many lies. I know, I've caught him telling plenty of porkies, he put me on ignore because of it. JC doesn't want honest debate, for him it's all about winning - even if it means making up stuff and twisting people's words around. ;)
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Frogwoman, I know you're relatively young; your knowledge and power of debate are admirable.

Try this on for size: you [i mean you personally] have accepted the position that Israel is behaving with unacceptable aggression toward the palestinians. You are anti-zionist.

In order to maintain that position, it is necessary for you to build an argument that although the jews have been mistreated in history, the mistreatment does not arise from any special or specific postion that the jews have held, but is instead similar to mistreatment suffered by various groups at various times.

It is necessary for you to construct this argument, because if you buy into the concept that the jews have been singled out for special mistreatment for the last two millenia, then the concept of zionism becomes understandable, desirable even for jews, and it becomes difficult for you to continue with your anti Israeli and anti zionist stance.


What do you think?


You're a patronising one to be sure and I wouldnae fucking mind, but what you're saying here has fuck all to do with the debate. You're trying to score more cheap points. What's the matter? Are you that fucking insecure that you have to belittle those who put forward better arguments than your own?

Your obsession with winning at all costs makes you look even more like the lying chiseller that you are; because you will do anything to win a 'debate' - including lying and misrepresenting other people's words. No wonder you put folk on 'ignore', you can't stand the truth: it's like garlic to a vampire.
 
frogwoman said:
i am not an anti-zionist.
i do think that jews have been singled out for special treatment by the state, for the reasons that i have said. i do understand that there is a need for jews to have a state because of what has happened in the past, and i think that a lot of anti-zionist viewpoints are on very dodgy ground. i do think that israel does have a right to defend its self within reason and i don't agree with the suicide bombings or any of that shit
but at the same time, what the israeli government has done to the palestinians makes me feel sick, and very very uncomfortable. we can do a lot better than this and g-d told us not to be violent, and to try and help people who were suffering, and killing is always absolutely wrong imo no matter who's doing it to who ...
im sorry if it seems that way to you but i'm not an anti-zionist and that isn't why im arguing this point, i'm just saying that all of these claims needed to be treated with scepitism as they could well be exaggerated and we need to ask why and for what purpose ...

do you understand?

Yes.
 
frogwoman;
but at the same time, what the israeli government has done to the palestinians makes me feel sick, and very very uncomfortable.

How sick ? How uncomfortable ?

Israeli activities this week;

3 Palestinians were killed by Israeli occupation forces.
Two Palestinians were extra-judicially executed by Israeli occupation forces in Bethlehem.
20 Palestinian civilians, including 10 children, were wounded by the Israeli occupation forces gunfire.
Israeli occupation forces continued to shell Palestinian areas in the Gaza Strip, especially the northern area, wounding 3 Palestinian civilians and damaging a number of houses and civilian facilities.
Israeli occupation forces conducted 38 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank, especially Nablus.
72 Palestinian civilians, including 5 children and 4 women, were arrested by Israeli occupation forces.
One house was transformed by Israeli occupation forces into a military site.

Israeli occupation forces have continued to impose a total siege on the occupied Palestinian territories; a Palestinian civilian drowned in rain floods when he attempted to bypass a checkpoint near Nablus; Israeli occupation forces have closed border crossings of the Gaza Strip; the north of the West Bank has been separated from its south; and Israeli occupation forces arrested 5 Palestinian civilians, including a girl, at checkpoints in the West Bank. Israeli occupation forces have continued to construct the Annexation Wall in the West Bank; Israeli occupation forces razed areas of land in Yatta village, south of Hebron, and Israeli occupation forces used force against peaceful demonstrations organized in protest to the construction of the Wall.

Source; The Palestinian Center for Human Rights.
 
More...

Frogwoman: Yes, the Tigers have utilised "suicide bomnbings." However , noone else really has gone that route so your hypothisis does not hold up.

Your comment stating that in Jews most Western nations are not in danger from terrorsim is utter nonsense. While there have not been any "suicide bombinbgs" there have been knifings and shootings. Indiscriminate violence is indiscriminate violence.

Panda: I apologise if I misunderstood your phrasing.

As for my comparison of Jews' and so called "Gypsies' " suffering, you made a point, I addressed it. You know what they say about not being able to stand the heat...
 
you might want to sort out treaties after the war b4 you start to blame jewish people

you should wonder why the allies gave jewish people half a country they didn't own in the first palce

if you want to share blame, share it between the europeans and the americans
 
Back
Top Bottom