Posted on 12/26/2001 9:21:53 AM PST by Alouette
Name five. Since the "occasions" have been "numerous", five instances to back up your accusations shouldn't be too much trouble, right?
I just let their hate ramble on.
Yes, where we can all just feel your "love". Accusing others of "hate" while haughtily being above "pushing the abuse button" doesn't do any of us any good. Push the button if someone is disobeying the rules.
Dealing from hate hardly advances American interests.
I have never seen a post from you which outlines American interests. Yes, you use the generic term as if you and only you know what those interests are, and only you (and others who share your anti-Israel views) are somehow "patriots", while those who disagree with you are not. Implying that others are not concerned with American interests because they care about the lives of others who don't happen to be Americans doesn't sound much like love to me.
We need clear thinking and real information.
I don't recall seeing evidence of "clear thinking" from you. Perhaps it's just my perception, but dealing in misinformation also seems to be something you're fond of. I have a news flash for you: You do not have the monopoly on what are or what are not "American interests" and just because an article or position happens to be anti-Israel doesn't automatically make it "clear information".
And, BTW, I believe the poster you're agreeing with happens to be a self-confessed leftist.
BULL!
The analogy is perfectly reasonable, provided that we note the relevant difference between "us" and "them": Hate driven, potentially violent religious fanatics are marginalized in the West and are a tiny minority, whereas in the Islamic (and particularly in the Arabic) World they are a loud and significant minority, often with large influence on mainstream society and on politics.
But, with that noted, terrorists are terrorists are terrorists. These guys are (to all present appearance) terrorists. Your defense of them is beyond me. They will get their defense in court. They should and will, if indicted (have they been?), have a fair trial with the same presumption of innocence accorded any accused and indicted person. We should encourage their lawyers to provide them a zealous defense, but we should likewise encourage a zealous prosecution.
The men may even turn out to be proven innocent, but that does not necessarily entail that they are not potential terrorists who should be denounced (rather than defended) by Americans and Jews. Specifically it may turn out that the FBI stepped over the line and committed entrapment (that is, impermissibly encouraged the commission of a crime that the defendants would not have been inclined to carry out in the absence of such influence). But the FBI apparently does have tapes with these guys actively involved in the discussion of plans for bombing mosques and such. If these guys even discussed such plans and intentions then they should be denounced, even if not guilty in the legal/criminal sense.
Or do you disagree? IOW is the contemplation of terrorist acts O.K. if it's "your guys" doing it?
Also, she was raised a 1950-Catholic convent girl in Australia and they were still in the "The Jews killed Christ" mode of teaching at the time. It took a long time to get that out of her system.
At least, that's the only reasons that I can come up with ... she, herself, doesn't seem to really be able to explain it, except for those points I've already mentioned.
1. Palestine or TransJordan was split between Israel and Jordan.
2. The "Palestinians" grew restless and were evicted from Jordan.
3. They want to forget they wanted to "secede" from the Jordanian King.
4. The Jordanian King gave up their land.
5. "Convince" the Jordanian King to take back the land and allow the Palestinians a period of years to learn how to behave themselves as a semi-autonomous state.
6. Or just let the PLA assume Statehood and let them prove themselves or not.
7. The status quo is stupid.
I've reduced the type size as you can see. I was very impressed by the big font.
The analogy is perfectly reasonable, provided that we note the relevant difference between "us" and "them": Hate driven, potentially violent religious fanatics are marginalized in the West and are a tiny minority, whereas in the Islamic (and particularly in the Arabic) World they are a loud and significant minority, often with large influence on mainstream society and on politics.
No it's not and no amount of yelling and screaming on your part will make the analogy stick. The objectives of both are different. Most of the JDL work has been done by confrontation and agressive tactics directed to interests which would otherwise have no relevance to you but would to Jews (they certainly have a big relevance to me as a Christian and knowing the history of these matters). I gave two examples. The fact that you don't get worked up about neo-nazi movements operating in North America may be more a reflection of your own apathy but it hardly makes the analogy reasonable.
But, with that noted, terrorists are terrorists are terrorists. These guys are (to all present appearance) terrorists. Your defense of them is beyond me. They will get their defense in court. They should and will, if indicted (have they been?), have a fair trial with the same presumption of innocence accorded any accused and indicted person. We should encourage their lawyers to provide them a zealous defense, but we should likewise encourage a zealous prosecution.
No. "Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists" - Repeat it as many times as you want. My defense of them? Didn't I straighten you out last time or is it you don't know how to reason beyond your nose? I invoked the presumption of innocence for them. You invoked immediate presumption of guilt notrwithstanding your vacuous mouthing of important principles of presumptive innocence and fair process. I take the principles seriously enough, you don't.
The men may even turn out to be proven innocent, but that does not necessarily entail that they are not potential terrorists who should be denounced (rather than defended) by Americans and Jews.
I'm sorry. Innocence by a jury of their peers means what?
But the FBI apparently does have tapes with these guys actively involved in the discussion of plans for bombing mosques and such. If these guys even discussed such plans and intentions then they should be denounced, even if not guilty in the legal/criminal sense
Do me a favour? Go back to the post I made to DL and read very carefully what I stated about these guys if it turns out the allegations are true. Then come back and apologize to me for your big font and yelling.
Oh, so you fancy yourself a psychic, do you? Your "powers" have failed you here, I'm afraid. Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity types, and so on are of much greater concern to me than the aging JDL'ers because they are more numerous. Your only problem is that I am not a selective relativist. I condemn ALL terrorists, and ALL those that would support terrorism. I advocate denouncing and marginalizing ALL hate-driven fanatic nutcases, regardless of their supposed "cause". (Where their cause may be valid or valuable, their ideas and actions are invariably counter-productive wrt it.)
I can read you because you appear to have no concern whatsoever of the main agenda of the JDL when it was actually doing something about neo-nazi movements in the U.S. You don't condemn all terrorists, you pick on an organization which doesn't attack Western interests because they're Jewish and get your rockers off condemning them in some kind of half-witted self-righteous diatribe. Again, my little task for you is to quote my original post up there as to what I had to say about these two characters if convicted. If you can't do that then buzz-off.
What I'm talking about is that they are hate-driven nutjobs who only discredit their cause. You don't need any FBI survellance tapes to determine that. Their own words, their website, etc are sufficient. I have to wonder why you won't denounce these angry old men regardless of and apart from whether they are guilty of this particular charge or not.
JDL Midwest Regional Director
Since the Jewish Defense League called for an area-wide boycott against
businesses that are connected to the Islamic Center (pictured below) in
Parma, Ohio, there has been a great deal of debate and concern in the
Northeast Ohio community about exactly what it is I have asked for, as
well as the specific reasons for the decision.
For that reason I would like to attempt to clarify the specifics of JDL's
position. I would like this to be completely clear. We have not asked for
a boycott of ALL Arab or Islamic businesses. We have specifically asked
that all Clevelanders, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity, avoid
doing business with those who choose to be associated with this
particular Islamic Center.
This is not racial profiling, it is a targeted boycott. Our reasons for doing
so stem directly from the Center's unanimous decision to retain Fawaz
Damra (pictured right) as their imam, or community spiritual leader.
Fawaz Damra, and a number of the board members of the Islamic Center
are known to be associated with Islamic Terrorists
groups. The reasons for this assertion is extensive.
Before coming to Cleveland Damra was imam at a
mosque in Brooklyn, New York. Members of this
mosque, located on Atlantic Avenue, were directly
involved with the first attack on the World Trade
Center in 1993, for which Damra was considered an
"unindicted co-conspirator." The same group of
terrorists, under the leadership of Sheik Abdul
Rahman, were directly responsible for the
assassination of JDL founder and former Knesset
(Israeli parliament) member Rabbi Meir Kahane, as
well as being implicated in the assassination of
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
On a video tape recently released by the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Damra calls for Jihad against "Israel, America,
Europe, and NATO" and goes on to say that the only way for this to be
accomplished is through terrorism. On the same tape he is seen rasing
money for a Palestinian terrorist organization called the Islamic Jihad
Movement of Palestine.(continued:read here for the rest of their "terrorist" activities:http://www.jdl.org/action/action/boycott_mosque.html)
(2) Armchair Activist: Unmasking Frauds: Uncovering
Anti-Israel "Jewish" Sites
Posted October 10, 2001
Updated October 13, 2001
As a service to the Jewish community, JDL is posting the URL's of
so-called "Jewish" organizations/ websites that are antithetical to
Jewish/Zionist beliefs. These traitorous entities are Jewish in name only;
many of them have ties to the Arabist lobby. At present time, all links
are functional. If you have an addition to this list, please send it to us.
http://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/frauds.html
(3) Bin Laden Has Won (http://www.jdl.org/)
Learn why columnist Joseph Farah believes that
George Bush's declaration of support for a so-called
"Palestinian state" is tantamount to a complete victory
for the forces of Islamic terror. . .(http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24766 - oh my goodness, a link to the Christian Arab Joseph Farah in his piece in WND!!! Shocking advocating of terrorism)
(4)Tape Shows Local Imam Supported Terrorhttp://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2001/September/26-191-aimam0928.txt - Oh no! Providing education on local Islamic groups and individuals involved in terrorism or supporting same)
(5) Helping the Children
We are asking that visitors to this site make
a contribution to a fund that has been set up
to benefit the six children who were orphaned
as a result of the Arab massacre of Binyamin
and Talia Kahane. . (http://www.jdl.org/israel/benjamin_kahane.html - Oh my goodness, the JDL is asking for funds to help the victims of Arab terror!!! Shame on them.)
Etc. etc.,
Quote my words or find something else to provide disinformation on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.