babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The Jewish Terrorism thread

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Jewish Terrorism thread
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Sabra and Shatila 1982

From this thread here: Western Standard IV

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 11:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, you know you can't do this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That was Israeli terrorism, or Israeli-facilitated terrorism.

It had nothing to do with "Jewish" terrorism.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 13 March 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think his point might be if it is wrong to say "Jewish Terrorism" why is "Islamic Terrorism" more acceptable? At least, I assume that is his point.

**edited to add: but then that is why you say two wrongs don't make a right ... Got it.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Cueball, you know you can't do this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That was Israeli terrorism, or Israeli-facilitated terrorism.

It had nothing to do with "Jewish" terrorism.


Skdadl, there is Israeli terrorism, and there is Jewish terrorism. How else would you describe JDL terrorist attacks in the U.S.? I agree, it demeans the word "Jewish". But how is it different from this godawful neologism "Islamofascist"?

Having said that, it is important to distinguish Israeli from "Jewish" terror -- just as it is crucial not to identify Jews with Zionism. If Cueball says that what happened in Sabra and Shatila was the act of "Jews", I want to hear it clearly, and I will condemn that statement as anti-semitic.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Cueball, you know you can't do this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That was Israeli terrorism, or Israeli-facilitated terrorism.

It had nothing to do with "Jewish" terrorism.


Well I want to know why people like C. Morgan talk about Islamic Terrorism because it is in the News forum, but we can not talk about Jewish Terrorism in the mid east forum.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, skdadl, I'm thinking it over, and changing my mind.

"Islamic terrorism" or "Islamofascist" are terms that should be banned as bigoted. That's one thing I hated about the "11 Muslim bigshots" and their elitist one-sided statement.

And, same goes for the term "Jewish terrorism". It has nothing to do with Jews, and everything to do (directly or indirectly) with certain political positions which are not unique to Jews.

Cueball: What are your thoughts?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is precisely what I think. I think that anytime you start saying things like "Black terrorsim," "Jewish Terrorism" and "Islamic terrorism" you are engaging identifying the whole group with the acts of a few. And I think that is racism.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well I want to know why people like C. Morgan talk about Islamic Terrorism because it is in the News forum, but we can not talk about Jewish Terrorism in the mid east forum.

Having thought it over, I agree with skdadl. Both terms are wrong (inaccurate and stereotypical and bordering on hatemongering). That doesn't mean they can't be used -- it's a relatively free country -- but be prepared to defend against charges of insensitivity or worse. And that applies to the "Islamic Terrorism" types as well.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
That is precisely what I think. I think that anytime you start saying things like "Black terrorsim," "Jewish Terrorism" and "Islamic terrorism" you are engaging identifying the whole group with the acts of a few. And I think that is racism.

Wow, that was cool. I think we all ended up agreeing. If that was your aim, Cueball, well done.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does this mean I can't denounce the Christian Terrorists who invaded Iraq in March 2003?

(feeble joke)


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It does not border on hate mongering. It is hate mongering.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Like "American Imperialism"? I can't imagine all 300 million Americans agree on that.

What shall we refer to it as in future?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It does not border on hate mongering. It is hate mongering.

Ok now Cueball. You are getting all worked up and your hyperbole is exceeding your normal levels.

I dont recall going on about "Islamic Terrorism".

I have been pointing out though that cartoons are not worthy of burning embassies and rioting.

It is you who keeps twisting things into an ever growing mess of hypersensitive exageration.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 13 March 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you are arguing imperialism and terrorism are the same, then I agree. So why don't we just call a spade a spade, drop the American, and refer to it for now on a global corporate terrorism?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Like "American Imperialism"? I can't imagine all 300 million Americans agree on that.

The difference would be that what gets called "American imperialism" is in fact officially carried out on behalf of the American government, which purports to represent the American people. Whereas there is no official body mandated to direct terrorism on behalf of Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Well I want to know why people like C. Morgan talk about Islamic Terrorism because it is in the News forum, but we can not talk about Jewish Terrorism in the mid east forum.


You know very well why.

There is a rule on babble: so-called "ironic racism" is not allowed.

Making an anti-racist point by writing racism, however ironically, is way beyond the pale here.

You know that.

That's why I said two wrongs don't make a right. They don't. That may not be the law, but it is the babble rule.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
The difference would be that what gets called "American imperialism" is in fact officially carried out on behalf of the American government, which purports to represent the American people. Whereas there is no official body mandated to direct terrorism on behalf of Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.

Good explanation. And thank goodness -- I feared, to be consistent with my recent awakening, that I'd have to stop talking about "U.S. imperialism". Saved by the damned.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 13 March 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey. I really like the idea of imperialism as terrorism. Finally someone is acknowledging the nuts and bolts of it.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 March 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

You know very well why.

There is a rule on babble: so-called "ironic racism" is not allowed.

Making an anti-racist point by writing racism, however ironically, is way beyond the pale here.

You know that.

That's why I said two wrongs don't make a right. They don't. That may not be the law, but it is the babble rule.


I understand it's "a babble rule", and "two wrongs don't make a right", but sometimes "two wrongs" make a damn good point.

And really, while I don't disagree with stomping on ironic racism, should the provoking real racism be stomped on first and harder?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

And really, while I don't disagree with stomping on ironic racism, should the provoking real racism be stomped on first and harder?


But of course.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

You know very well why.

There is a rule on babble: so-called "ironic racism" is not allowed.

Making an anti-racist point by writing racism, however ironically, is way beyond the pale here.

You know that.

That's why I said two wrongs don't make a right. They don't. That may not be the law, but it is the babble rule.


People were arguing elsewhere on the board that saying "Islamic Terrorism" was not racism. In fact they were using the term, not just talking about it.

This has been going on for weeks. So If the board allows people to talk about "Islamic terrorism," and that is not racist and against babble policy, then I should be able to talk about "Jewish terrorism," since it is not racist to do such.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
People were arguing elsewhere on the board that saying "Islamic Terrorism" was not racism. In fact they were using the term, not just talking about it.

This has been going on for weeks. So If the board allows people to talk about "Islamic terrorism," and that is not racist and against babble policy, then I should be able to talk about "Jewish terrorism," since it is not racist to do such.


Cueball has a good point. While I don't think either term is bad enough to merit being banned outright, can we not agree that they should be treated as equally bad -- not be passed over in silence -- and that babblers should be discouraged from using them by the moderators, etc.?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh for god's sake. As skdadl says, two wrongs don't make a right.

If you want to complain about someone using the term Islamic terrorism, you send an e-mail or private message to the moderator, you don't start a new thread doing the same thing yourself.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca