Palestinian group threatens to attack Jewish targets abroad

[nino_savatte]

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

I think you need to clarify what you mean by "Jewish", since Jewish identity is not as narrow as some would have us believe.

 

[frogwoman]

frogwoman;


How sick ? How uncomfortable ?

very, its fucking disgusting.

look, if you think im some kind of apologist, you couldnt have got me more wrong, you dont know anything about me ... did you actually read what i wrote?

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

i wasn't the one making the hypothesis though, i think you've got me and vp mixed 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.

Crime, even hate crime, is not the same as terrorism. you know full well what terrorism means, and it doesn't mean stabbings or shootings.

if i was to walk down the street and be mugged, would that be terrorism?

if a bunch of chavs beat me up, is that terrorism?

what about if someone stabs a black person for being black, or a white person for being white?

what about rape, is that also terrorism?

a racial or religiously motivated attack is not a terrorist act. that's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard.

and it is not evidence of a jihad.

and as i have said, repeatedly, i feel that i am in FAR more danger from crime and from being attacked, or robbed, or having something happen to me for whatever reason, than from being blown up in a bomb

 

[ViolentPanda]

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...

The day I can't stand the heat in your kitchen will be several days after I've died.

 

[moono]

frogwoman;

... did you actually read what i wrote?

Amongst other things you said;

i am not an anti-zionist. i do understand that there is a need for jews to have a state

I am anti-Zionist and I don't believe that Zionists should have a State at Palestinian expense.
Demographers tell us, right or wrong, that an exclusively Jewish State can only be maintained, over time, by means of apartheid.
How would you reconcile your desire for a Jewish State and the means required to maintain one ?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Uhj-oh, now she's in the soup.

 

[vimto]

Uhj-oh, now she's in the soup.

And you aren't?

Give us a kiss Johnny...big smiley

 

[frogwoman]

frogwoman;


Amongst other things you said;


I am anti-Zionist and I don't believe that Zionists should have a State at Palestinian expense.
Demographers tell us, right or wrong, that an exclusively Jewish State can only be maintained, over time, by means of apartheid.
How would you reconcile your desire for a Jewish State and the means required to maintain one ?

why does it have to be exclusively jewish though?

lots of countries are officially muslim or christian or whatever but have equal rights for everyone and are really secular

people say lots of stuff that isnt necessarily true, they just say it, so that they can justify their own opinions of something or what they want to do

 

[moono]

So you can't reconcile the two.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino: I would think that even you could understand what "so called 'Gypsies' " meant. "Gypsie" is a term attached to them by europeans, just as "West Bank" is a geographical term also used by foreigners. "Gypsies" use other labels to identify themselves, Roma and Sinti are only a couple.

Frogwoman: Seems you are a bit confused. Case in point: Here in NYC after the Crown Heights Riots of [about] a decade ago, an Arab in a van spotted a Chassid Jew i a passing car and followed. When both stopped, the Arab got out and knifed him to death. You seem to think this a hate crime. The Arab upon questioning said it was to avenge his "Palestinian brothers." Most construe this as terrorism. In Israel, when a Jew is attacked it is both terrorism and a hate crime. Semantics do not change an action.

If a black shoots a white because iof skin color, it CAN also be terrorism.

Rape CAN also be terrosism. Does it inspire fear?

An attack based on race or religion being labeled a terrosit attack is the stupidest thing you have ever heard? So Afrikaners who did just that right after the fall of Apartheid, with the reestablishment of the status quo being their avowed goal were NOT terrorists then? I don't see that you have though this one out too well.

Jihad is not the only reason for terrorism. ETA were not jihadi.

Statistically you ARE more in danger of being victimised by violent crime but that does not discount the very real specter of terrorism.

Israel IS a secular state AND DOES have equal rights fro ALL its citizens.

Moono: "Demographers tell us that a Jewish state can only be maintained over time via Apartheid?" Really? THEY SURE DID, PRIOR TO "DISENGAGEMENT." Now please revisit the subject and you will find yourself a bit suprised...that is if you actually care.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: I would think that even you could understand what "so called 'Gypsies' " meant. "Gypsie" is a term attached to them by europeans, just as "West Bank" is a geographical term also used by foreigners. "Gypsies" use other labels to identify themselves, Roma and Sinti are only a couple.
Frogwoman: Seems you are a bit confused. Case in point: Here in NYC after the Crown Heights Riots of [about] a decade ago, an Arab in a van spotted a Chassid Jew i a passing car and followed. When both stopped, the Arab got out and knifed him to death. You seem to think this a hate crime. The Arab upon questioning said it was to avenge his "Palestinian brothers." Most construe this as terrorism. In Israel, when a Jew is attacked it is both terrorism and a hate crime. Semantics do not change an action.

If a black shoots a white because iof skin color, it CAN also be terrorism.

Rape CAN also be terrosism. Does it inspire fear?

An attack based on race or religion being labeled a terrosit attack is the stupidest thing you have ever heard? So Afrikaners who did just that right after the fall of Apartheid, with the reestablishment of the status quo being their avowed goal were NOT terrorists then? I don't see that you have though this one out too well.

Jihad is not the only reason for terrorism. ETA were not jihadi.

Statistically you ARE more in danger of being victimised by violent crime but that does not discount the very real specter of terrorism.

Israel IS a secular state AND DOES have equal rights fro ALL its citizens.

Moono: "Demographers tell us that a Jewish state can only be maintained over time via Apartheid?" Really? THEY SURE DID, PRIOR TO "DISENGAGEMENT." Now please revisit the subject and you will find yourself a bit suprised...that is if you actually care.

Just the text highlighted in bold:

1. I think you'll find that you've just made that one up about the "Gypsies". Next you'll be telling me that they originated in central Europe.

2. My what a racist thing to say, why am I not surprised.

 

[rachamim18]

More off thread nonsense...

Nino: Most agree that they originated in northern India [not the Pavee of course]. The term "Gypsy" is a corruption of "Egyptian" since that was what the first recorded bands were labled [Christain pilgrims from Egypt].

How would a black shooting a white on the basis of skin color be racist when labeled terrorism? As usual, you try to make controversy out of nothing.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: Most agree that they originated in northern India [not the Pavee of course]. The term "Gypsy" is a corruption of "Egyptian" since that was what the first recorded bands were labled [Christain pilgrims from Egypt].

How would a black shooting a white on the basis of skin color be racist when labeled terrorism? As usual, you try to make controversy out of nothing.

I've called you on your racism here again, R18, and you play cute wee games with semantics in the hope that no one will spot it. All this crap about being "poor" at English is nothing but a smokescreen.

Now then, would you care to tell us what you're really saying here?

 

[moono]

Rachamim;

Moono: "Demographers tell us that a Jewish state can only be maintained over time via Apartheid?" Really? THEY SURE DID, PRIOR TO "DISENGAGEMENT." Now please revisit the subject and you will find yourself a bit suprised...that is if you actually care.

You're right. There is another way;

"We were sitting next to each other and the Jews shot her while we were speaking together. There were no weapons, there were no bombs. Why they do this? Why?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4963598.stm

 

[frogwoman]

Frogwoman: Seems you are a bit confused.

No, I am not. Crime is crime, terrorism is terrorism.

Case in point: Here in NYC after the Crown Heights Riots of [about] a decade ago, an Arab in a van spotted a Chassid Jew i a passing car and followed. When both stopped, the Arab got out and knifed him to death. You seem to think this a hate crime.

It is, just as it would be a hate crime if it had occurred the other way round. Do you agree with that statement?

The Arab upon questioning said it was to avenge his "Palestinian brothers."

People are always going to find things to justify their crimes with, mostly out of hatred. ffs, a racist nutter stabbing someone to death isn't at all the same as a terrorist planting a bomb in persuit of a "war" or some other twisted purpose.

Most construe this as terrorism.

Erm, how is it "terrorism"? Its just an anti-semitic nutter stabbing someone to death, and using the palestinians to justify their actions. how do you know that was what he really thought, or whether he was just saying anything that came into his head to try and get himself a reduced sentence? did the palestinians tell him to do it, like some kind of voice in his head saying "kill...kill...kill..."

its the palestinians fault ... they made him do it - thats the same kind of an excuse as "the devil made him do it" and it just lends legitimacy to this kind of attack ...

In Israel, when a Jew is attacked it is both terrorism and a hate crime. Semantics do not change an action.

you have a funny idea of what terrorism is, then.

If a black shoots a white because iof skin color, it CAN also be terrorism.

I suppose you could call it terrorism if it was part of some kind of political campaign, but its a stretch of the imagination to call every incidence of that sort terrorism, whereas it might just be done out of prejudice, or a vendetta against that person, or any number of reasons.

its bollocks ... you cant turn every racially motivated crime and say that its all politically motivated, most of it is done out of pure hatred and i am sure when someone attacks a jew in 99% of cases the palestinians aren't on their mind . i have read stories about skinhead gangs in eastern europe beating palestinian students to death and then the same night, the same people beat jews to death.

they might say it was because of terrorism
they might say it was because of the idf

neither would be true .

its hatred encouraged and bred by social circumstances, the media and the person's upbringing, which is entirely different to the goals of a terrorist organisation

Rape CAN also be terrosism. Does it inspire fear?

its sometimes used as a weapon of war, but thats an entirely different scenario from a woman being attacked walking home by someone she doesn't know

An attack based on race or religion being labeled a terrosit attack is the stupidest thing you have ever heard?

erm, read my post again.

So Afrikaners who did just that right after the fall of Apartheid, with the reestablishment of the status quo being their avowed goal were NOT terrorists then?

yes they were, because they were seeking a political goal, they weren't attacking someone just because they felt like it.

I don't see that you have though this one out too well.

Jihad is not the only reason for terrorism. ETA were not jihadi.

Statistically you ARE more in danger of being victimised by violent crime but that does not discount the very real specter of terrorism.

of course, but the danger is very much exaggerated, IMO and you have to be very careful about getting into some sort of paranoid frenzy about terrorism when a lot of it is overhyped for political reasons and it is infinitely less likely to happen to you than racially motivated or any other type of crime or even an accident.

thats not to say that terrorism isn't a real danger but you have to keep it in perspective based on what's already happened and you can't label acts of violent crime "terrorism" as though they were all done for political reasons.

Israel IS a secular state AND DOES have equal rights fro ALL its citizens.

what was the point of you saying that?