Hamdi Qur'an.
Ah of course, Hamdi Qur'an, who was "imprisoned" with his associates (that is debatable) and was about to be set free by the Hamas goverment after 4 years in prison. Well I guess for Palestinians you'd have to kill an Israeli minister to be treated like a murderer, if you shoot two infants and their mother in the head like Sirhan Sirhan did, you can walk freely, well at least until the IDF gets you.
Ami Popery will not smell freedom again, I am sure of that, and it doesn't matter who will be in power in Israel.
... Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. Maybe you have him confused with Samir Kuntar.
No I don't believe I do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan_(militant)
Is this thread about recent terrorism? Or is older material relevant?
King David Hotel in Jerusalem (July 22, 1946)
What happened: 91 people killed by explosives planted by the Irgun: 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and five persons of other nationalities. Of the dead, 21 were British government officials, 13 were soldiers, and three were police officers. There were also 49 employees of either the hotel or the British government and five members of the public.
We all know the saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims." Perhaps it's a fair statement in terms of raw numbers, but is it fair to suggest that terrorism is a peculiarly Muslim phenomenon? Apparently, other groups have their share of terrorists as well.
Suicide attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Bible Book of Judges recounts the story of the Jewish hero Samson and how he killed himself by bringing down the temple of the Philistines in order to kill three thousand Philistines.
This makes no sense. A source being "anti-American" has little to do with its actual content and the factual base of it.
So the main theme is not about the Middle East.
Thanks for proving it.
The main theme is to infer that:
1-JEWS are terrorists
2-Jews because they are terrorists go to Israel to terrorize Palestinians on the West Bank
3-Jews because they are terrorists created Israel to engage in terrorism against Palestinians.
The themes are crystal clear as is the intent to blur the distinction between Jews, Zionists and Israelis and engage in the pretext of discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict but in fact engaging in stereotypes designed to incite and infer a jew who support's Israel's right to exist is a terrorist.
Here is the point. There are extremists in all groups. We all know that. No religious group, national group, nation, or people is without extremists.
We all know that.
The point of the thread particularly the title was to suggest Jews are terrorists and then link it to the policies of the state of Israel, no more, no less and suggest the two are inter-changeable.
Mika-El said:So now unlike Mr. Smith, let me not couch my words when I respond-that according to the Council on Foreign Relations, they estimated there were less then 100 people in the Kach fewer then 100 in the Kach, Kachane Chai group which would be linkled to the JDL, now in Israel; Kach, Kahane Chai (Israel, extremists) - Council on Foreign Relations.
We all know terrorists within Israel assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. We know there are others, possibly in Shas, possibly in Likud, possibly in other fringe groups that have extremist and anti Muslim and anti Arab views.
The fact is they are a minority. If people like Mr. Smith want to use them to couch references to Jews being terrorists and Jewish terrrorists and Israeli supporters being one and the same, he will do that.
Mika-El said:He will also of course as he has demonstrated have to rely on allegations that are unproven back in the 70's to build his Jew terrorist conspiracies and rely on unreferenced sources.
The fact Mr. Smith quotes an unreferenced source says it all.
I would suggest that anyone who offers an article from an alleged unreferenced, unproven CIA source should tell you all you need to know about its credibility.
Perhaps Mr. Smith can tell us how he knows its not a fabricated article and the alleged CIA source exists let alone said what he said because it was true and not disinformation. Can't wait.
No, the inference is that Jews are terrorists if we apply the same guilt by association reasoning that is often applied to Muslims. But thanks for acknowledging that there are extremists in other groups.
Likud is no fringe group. It holds the position of PM as well as the second largest number of seats in the Knesset. The ultra-nationalist Yisreal Beiteinu holds the third largest.
Maybe I was too quick to thank you for acknowledging what "we all know." In any case, the article is from a legitimate publication and contains references to several sources other than the CIA, including the Department of Energy, the FBI, the Jewish Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
1-No, the inference is that Jews are terrorists if we apply the same guilt by association reasoning that is often applied to Muslims. But thanks for acknowledging that there are extremists in other groups.
2-Likud is no fringe group. It holds the position of PM as well as the second largest number of seats in the Knesset. The ultra-nationalist Yisreal Beiteinu holds the third largest.
3- In any case, the article is from a legitimate publication and contains references to several sources other than the CIA, including the Department of Energy, the FBI, the Jewish Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Mika-El said:In regards to 1, if that was your intent you could have simply stated it is wrong to generalize that an entire people are terrorist simply because some of such people are and left it at that. You didn't. Instead you turned your coment into a slur against Jews as evidenced in the title of the thread which does not as per your rationalize say "Some Jews Are Terrorists". You deliberately referenced an article that refers to American Jewish terrorists and suggests they are synonomous with West Bank Israeli settlers. You did not use the Irish, Basques, the Chechnyans as an example for your alleged analogy you delibrately chose Jews and an article that makes an unreferenced allegation they are terrorists on the West Bank. The article's context speaks to your intent precisely because you referenced it and so your attempt to suggest you were not referencing Jews who support Israel as being terrorist is absurd. Of course you were.
What you in fact now have done is to argue you deliberately engaged in exercise you find wrong.
You would have us believe the very behaviour you find questionable against Muslims can only be criticized by engaging in the same questionable behaviour against Jews. That is not only illogical but shows you are not interested in establishing a point, just committing the same exercise you criticize others for against a new target.
To establish a valid point you might not want to repeat the very same exercise you criticize others for. It proves nothing other then you are contradicting yourself.
Mika-El said:In regards to 2, Likud is not a terrorist organization. It does have extremists. Neither Likud or the other group you quoted condone, advocate or support terrorism. Don't play on the word extremist and terrorist with me and try mix the two and suggest they are the same they are not and at no time did I suggest they were. There are extremists and there are terrorists. There is a difference. You claim you know the difference with Muslims then surely you would know it also applies with Israelis and Jews.
Mika-El said:In regards to 3, no you missed the point. If you want to quote an article that allegedly quotes the CIA or Dept. of Energy or anyone else, but does not provide names, and actual quotes, what you produce is meaningless gossip scandal and you are well aware of that fact, precisely because what you quote can not be corroborated as having ever been said.
Something that can not be corroborated does not magically become credible because you say so or the writer says so-its credibility rests on the ability of the writer to prove his allegations with documented sources.
Provide me the name of the alleged CIA spokesperson who said what he did. Provide the documentation he claims exists to prove his point. You can't. The article is a classic example of yellow journalism-quoting sources that can not be corroborated.
It's called irony.
1-You're the one who brought "extremists" into the discussion. If you don't like the implications, feel free to use whatever words you like.
2-Except that they are corroborated by numerous sources, as I mentioned. Besides which, using unnamed sources doesn't constitute "yellow journalism," especially in cases where you're dealing with leakers. Read All the President's Men some time if you want to get an idea how the editorial process works.
Mika-El said:In regards to 1, you are absolutely correct I raised the word extremist, and yes I challenge the inferences NOT implications you have made which suggest extremists and terrorists are one and the same. What you call implications I challenge as unreasonable assumptions by you precisely because logic tells us not all extremists believe in terrorism, not all extremists believe in using violence to express their views. As well what you and I may consider extreme, i.e., the views of Shas or the right wing of Likud or some of the religious parties in Netanyahu's coalition, others consider status quo.
For example for years Hamas in Gaza was extremist but non terrorist before a struggle saw a new circle come to power that now advocates terrorism.
Mika-El said:In regards to 2, no the "leaks: you referred to were not corroborated. For me, quoting an uncorroborated source is yellow journalism. I find it yellow because it can't be verified.
The book " All The President's Men" was simply a hard cover version of a typical trash tabloid article. Until the many allegations in it could be verified and corroborated all it was-was yellow journalism or gossip.
I have written for magazines and newspapers. I also appreciate standards of journalism have changed over the years but I am still one of many who believe there is no integrity to an article that can not be corroborated following the same principle as to why in the court system, evidence is not considered admissable and credible until it can be corroborated and tested for its authenticity.
We have the heresay rule of evidence in the court system precisely to protect and assure evidence relied on can be tested and verified. Uncorroborated remarks can not be.
Intelligence is about spreading disinformation, i.e., placing a tiny bit of truth with a whoel lot of fabrication-we all know that. It would be unreasonable to think any one claiming to work in intelligence would not at any given time be spreading disinformation.
No I do not for a second find it credible to have some uncorroborated source "leaking" information that is not substantiated in any way. That is illogical. No I do not simply accept what people tell me without being able to prove it using an objective methodology that can test its veracity.
Come back when you have some corroborated documents.
1-Evidence does not have to be corroborated to be admissible in court.
2-Again, only a small portion of the article refers to CIA documents. The rest comes from mainstream sources reporting incidents that aren't in dispute.
i saw that post and thought back to the gloves entered into evidence at the OJ murder trial1-Of course it does. After 30 years of teaching law give that one to me. The only evidence that does not have to be corroborated is evidence all sides consent to or that is judicially noticed, i.e., a fact that is so evident, that it does not need to be proven, i.e., the world is round.
2-In regards to your comment, I think its gone as far as it can go. The information I challenged was the uncorroborated second hand alleged insider info from the unidentified person who claims to be a CIA agent. Lol you are fully aware of what I am challenging. As I said, come back when you have the name and identity of this person and the documentation they are relying on.
Look I read a lot about Lindsay Lohan from inside sources too. However I happen to know she is actually a very nice girl.
1-Of course it does. After 30 years of teaching law give that one to me. The only evidence that does not have to be corroborated is evidence all sides consent to or that is judicially noticed, i.e., a fact that is so evident, that it does not need to be proven, i.e., the world is round.
Mika-El said:2-In regards to your comment, I think its gone as far as it can go. The information I challenged was the uncorroborated second hand alleged insider info from the unidentified person who claims to be a CIA agent. Lol you are fully aware of what I am challenging. As I said, come back when you have the name and identity of this person and the documentation they are relying on.
Look I read a lot about Lindsay Lohan from inside sources too. However I happen to know she is actually a very nice girl.
1-Then you should know that evidence is typically authenticated by the testimony of a single witness, i.e. without corroboration.
2-As for the hearsay rule, there's a good reason why it doesn't apply to journalism. If it did, there would be no journalism. Most of what's printed in newspapers is second-hand information.
3- My understanding was that you were dismissing the whole article as "yellow journalism," not just the first few paragraphs...QUOTE]
and Justabubba's comment:
"..w that post and thought back to the gloves entered into evidence at the OJ murder trial
that 'if it does not fit you must acquit' evidence.."
how does that square with your assertion that the court compels corroboration relative to evidence submission?
To answer JustaBubba's comment and remark 1 by Winston Smith, "autenticated by a single witness"
is called corroboration. It is up to a Judge or a Jury to test and consider evidence presented before them to decide whether its credible. That testing of the evidence to determine whether its credible or not is part of the corroboration process.
The bottom line is the testing of evidence can come down to the jury or Judge's subjective interpretation of its relevance and this is why for example in the OJ Simpson cased despite pages upon pages of scientific evidence which provided a basis to prove OJ was guilty, the Jury unable to understand that evidence instead responded to a rhyme put forth by Johny Cochran, "if it don't fit..you must aquit".
The District Attorney in the OJ case failed to explain the evidence in a way the Jury could understand.
That above phenomena simply shows that evidence must be tested and corroborated and in the cases above, proves my point, that in the law, evidence is tested in court before it is admitted. Sometimes we don't like that corroboration or testing process because we feel it comes up with illogical considerations, but the courts allow Jury's to decide what is or is not relevant to them. At another level the Juge in a Jury trial or Judge alone trial, also has to follow other rules of evidence as to admissability that might exclude otherwise perfectly valid and corroborated evidence, i.e., because it was obtained illegally, i.e., without a valid warrant.
I hope that explains what I stated. Please do not misunderstand juries that come to conclusions about the relevance of evidence with the corroboration process. They are two different issues. The point I was making is, the evidence can't just come to court and be accepted. There must be some sort of testing of it in court through a cross examination and examination process unless both parties waive that process and consent to it being admissable and relevant. Judges and juries can not rely on any evidence unless its examined and cross examined in court and all the arguements for its relevance are layed out unless everyone agrees ahead of time its relevant.
No evidence can be relied upon otherwise.
Now in regards to remark 2, I dismissed the pith and substance of the article, the contentions by someone you claim is a CIA representative. There is no proof of his identity, his authenticity of existence, or any evidence to document what he says. That alleged source could be anyone or someone planting disinformation and in the absence of their identity, and the documentation they rely on, everything they say can not be tested as true or authenticated and I am contending it is illogical to read and accept such sources as they are no better then trash tabloid stories with the supposed "friend" who never has a name telling us she saw Lindsay and Sammy go at it in a stall.
In regards to 3- I have never dismissed the fact that the Jwish Defence League exists. That is a corroborated fact. Its small numbers are also a corroborated fact. Its ties to the former Kache Party and certain extremist settlers on the West Bank some who have the potential to be terrorists, is also a corroborated fact by the Israeli government and US government.
What I am stating however is your exercise of engaging in suggesting Jews are terrorists to prove saying Muslims are terrorists is wrong, is illogical. It simply engages in a smeer to prove another equally as wrong smeer is wrong.
You would have been better off simply stating that the negative generalization of all Muslims as terrorists is unreasonable just as it would be if we label all Zionists or Jews or Israelis racists or terrorists.
Lol, of course you would not do that. Your mandate was it not was to advance the Jew-israel connection and how we are all violent and rabid followers of Israel as per the Jewish terrorist title. Or do you think I am being touchy? Lol. Sorry I have read far too many articles that allege criticizing certain Israeli citizens and are phrased in a manner that casts negative light on all kinds of Jews.
I am no terrorist because I am Jewish and a Zionist. I do not hate Palestinians nor do I blindly support expansion on the West Bank. No I do not quote the Bible as the basis of my Zionist views in fact like the majority of Zionists I am not religious and I see the expression of collective Jewish identity through a state as an existential imperative for continued survival and the religion of Judaism is only one part of a vast mix of factors that make the Jewish collective identity and no the Zionism I was taught does not and never promoted terrorism or violence.
The fringe beliefs of the JDL or the beliefs of certain fundamentalist religious Zionists on the West Bank are a small minority of West Bank settlers. They are as much a problem for the security of Israel as Palestinian or Muslim terrorists.
The State of Israel no more wants extremists from the JDL settling in its country anymore then it would want terrorist Palestinians living next to it. Either are equally as problematic for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians.
Mika-El said:To answer JustaBubba's comment and remark 1 by Winston Smith, "autenticated by a single witness"
is called corroboration. It is up to a Judge or a Jury to test and consider evidence presented before them to decide whether its credible. That testing of the evidence to determine whether its credible or not is part of the corroboration process.
The bottom line is the testing of evidence can come down to the jury or Judge's subjective interpretation of its relevance and this is why for example in the OJ Simpson cased despite pages upon pages of scientific evidence which provided a basis to prove OJ was guilty, the Jury unable to understand that evidence instead responded to a rhyme put forth by Johny Cochran, "if it don't fit..you must aquit".
The District Attorney in the OJ case failed to explain the evidence in a way the Jury could understand.
That above phenomena simply shows that evidence must be tested and corroborated and in the cases above, proves my point, that in the law, evidence is tested in court before it is admitted. Sometimes we don't like that corroboration or testing process because we feel it comes up with illogical considerations, but the courts allow Jury's to decide what is or is not relevant to them. At another level the Juge in a Jury trial or Judge alone trial, also has to follow other rules of evidence as to admissability that might exclude otherwise perfectly valid and corroborated evidence, i.e., because it was obtained illegally, i.e., without a valid warrant.
I hope that explains what I stated. Please do not misunderstand juries that come to conclusions about the relevance of evidence with the corroboration process. They are two different issues. The point I was making is, the evidence can't just come to court and be accepted. There must be some sort of testing of it in court through a cross examination and examination process unless both parties waive that process and consent to it being admissable and relevant. Judges and juries can not rely on any evidence unless its examined and cross examined in court and all the arguements for its relevance are layed out unless everyone agrees ahead of time its relevant.
No evidence can be relied upon otherwise.
Mika-El said:Now in regards to remark 2, I dismissed the pith and substance of the article, the contentions by someone you claim is a CIA representative. There is no proof of his identity, his authenticity of existence, or any evidence to document what he says. That alleged source could be anyone or someone planting disinformation and in the absence of their identity, and the documentation they rely on, everything they say can not be tested as true or authenticated and I am contending it is illogical to read and accept such sources as they are no better then trash tabloid stories with the supposed "friend" who never has a name telling us she saw Lindsay and Sammy go at it in a stall.
Mika-El said:In regards to 3- I have never dismissed the fact that the Jwish Defence League exists. That is a corroborated fact. Its small numbers are also a corroborated fact. Its ties to the former Kache Party and certain extremist settlers on the West Bank some who have the potential to be terrorists, is also a corroborated fact by the Israeli government and US government.
What I am stating however is your exercise of engaging in suggesting Jews are terrorists to prove saying Muslims are terrorists is wrong, is illogical. It simply engages in a smeer to prove another equally as wrong smeer is wrong.
You would have been better off simply stating that the negative generalization of all Muslims as terrorists is unreasonable just as it would be if we label all Zionists or Jews or Israelis racists or terrorists.
Lol, of course you would not do that. Your mandate was it not was to advance the Jew-israel connection and how we are all violent and rabid followers of Israel as per the Jewish terrorist title. Or do you think I am being touchy? Lol. Sorry I have read far too many articles that allege criticizing certain Israeli citizens and are phrased in a manner that casts negative light on all kinds of Jews.
I am no terrorist because I am Jewish and a Zionist. I do not hate Palestinians nor do I blindly support expansion on the West Bank. No I do not quote the Bible as the basis of my Zionist views in fact like the majority of Zionists I am not religious and I see the expression of collective Jewish identity through a state as an existential imperative for continued survival and the religion of Judaism is only one part of a vast mix of factors that make the Jewish collective identity and no the Zionism I was taught does not and never promoted terrorism or violence.
The fringe beliefs of the JDL or the beliefs of certain fundamentalist religious Zionists on the West Bank are a small minority of West Bank settlers. They are as much a problem for the security of Israel as Palestinian or Muslim terrorists.
The State of Israel no more wants extremists from the JDL settling in its country anymore then it would want terrorist Palestinians living next to it. Either are equally as problematic for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians.
Is the same CIA that relied on the information of an Iraqi informant (Speedball) who said that Saddam had WMDs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?