What do think of Jews terrorist attacking church in the hometown of Jesus on Friday

I'd say the issue deserves investigation. I'd also say your failure to provide a verifiable source says a good deal about you.

 

Look out this thread may be deleted because its anti-semetic :biglaugh:

 

No, I've seen this several places in the news. Um...I think it's a very bad thing to do? Sounds like the guy was nuts. Hopefully everyone's alright there, it sounds like there's not any serious damage to the building, which is good. It's a shame about people get hurt afterwards in the protest.

How is this thread anti-semitic?

 

In addition to this being the action of a mentally ill man, there's no mention in the article that he's jewish. He's referred to as being Israeli, but there's no mention of his ethnicity or religious affiliation.

So, why did you refer to him as a "jewish terrorist", flysky?

 

Gutlessly deceitful cesspool antisemitism.

 

juxtopposed with

I think my multi dimensional dialectic synthesis to this will be the cliched quote 'If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.' followed by a 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' and an ironic note that when a spade is a spade it is not wrong to call it such.

 

You've made what and how you think abundantly clear.

From flysky's initially omitted source:

Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra told Israel radio it "was not a (terrorist) attack and there was no specific intention to harm the Church of the Annunciation".

The three intruders were a man and his wife, and a woman who Israeli media said was their daughter.

The man was known by police to suffer from mental illness and to have threatened to attack churches in the past, officials said. ​

To take the deranged act of a mentally ill man and his [Christian] wife and leverage it into the rhetorical question

What do think of Jews terrorist attacking church in the hometown of Jesus on Friday​

is antisemitic deceit. Given that, I'm not at all surprised to find you nearby.

 

Took your time to respond, even tho' you were online when I posted, I was watching you closely to make sure. I suppose you had to go and get your brain out of storage. I think that Flysky's use of 'Jews Terrorist' was meant to read 'Jewish Terrorist', and I'm guessing that his first language is not English. I think that as 'standing on one foot' pointed out such a thread is not inherently 'anti-semitic. The person concerned was i) Jewish and ii) terrorised a civilian group, thus I think the use of the conjoined descriptive words 'Jewish' and 'Terrorist' while not being mutually dependent are in this instance relevant and interrelated. I think it would be important to realise that not all Jews are terrorists nor all terrorists Jews.

Let me extend the analogy, you whine and, 'racially'/ethnically if not religiously you are a Jew. Thus if I was to call you a whining Jew, does it infer that all Jews whine or that people that whine are Jews, certainly not. To categorise all Jews as whiners would indeed be antisemitic.

Once more thank you for allowing me to have a laugh at your expense...:jiggy:

(I was just in bed listening to the radio and I think you would make a great straight man next to Mel Brooks.....seems the Oscars are on at the moment.....live the dream Jayhawker....I can see your name in lights even if you can't.)

 

ok some guy w/ a history mental illness goes into a church w/....FIRECRACKERS!!!

the man's using bottle rockets people! it's not exactly C4

if this is a "terrorist" attack it's the lamest one i've ever seen

 

here's some more info to flush out the story about our "bottle rocket terrorist"



An Israeli man who caused a riot in Nazareth on Friday evening by throwing firecrackers into the Basilica of the Annunciation visited Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Ramallah in 1999 to request political asylum.

Police said on Saturday that Haim Eliyahu Havivi carried out the attack during a packed Lent prayer service at one of the holiest sites in Christianity because he wanted to draw attention to his economic distress.

The riot that took place after the attack left 17 policemen and 10 protesters injured, as police who arrived at the scene to protect the family were confronted by stone throwers. The angry mob also torched several police vehicles.

Havivi, a 44-year-old Jewish resident of Jerusalem, carried out the attack in the presence of his 40-year-old Christian wife, Violet, and their 20-year-old daughter, Odelia, although it was unclear if the two women participated, a spokeswoman said. All three were taken to Tiberias Magistrate's Court on Saturday night and remanded in custody for 15 days.

"I have nothing against Christians or Muslims," a lightly wounded Havivi said at the hearing. "All I want is my children who were taken away from me by the state."
Welfare authorities had placed two of his younger children into foster care. According to police, he may have had a history of mental illness.

"It's nothing to do with him being right-wing or left-wing," a police spokesman said. "We know from the initial investigation that he has financial problems and we are looking at whether he has psychological problems."
Police said it was unclear why Havivi had sought refuge in the Palestinian Authority, but Palestinian reports claimed he wanted to settle in the territories with his Christian wife and their four children. In any case, his request for asylum was rejected by the PA.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395532778&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

a jewish family? His wife's a christian and, therefore, his children by that woman are non-jews...the only jew in the picture, it would seem, is the crazy guy w/ the bottle rockets:sarcastic

mmmm jewish terrorism....whatever:biglaugh:
would you like to try for double jeopardy?

 

Terrorism is defined by its aftereffects i.e. 07/07/05, people effected by 3 bombs = 56? No people effected/terrorised by 3 bombs > 10 million, that's the point.

That terrorism should be for a cause to be terrorism. What particular cause? Social, Economic, Political, or Religious?

That terrorism to be effective must be carried out must by more than one person?

I agree that this doesn't quite come up to the standard of previous Jewish Terrorism i.e. Irgun/King David's Hotel and thus this instance is relegated to comedy much in the vein of Mel Brooks.

I do however appreciate that you choose to find it amusing rather than accusing flysky of antisemitism. Your response seems more in line with 'standing on one foot', which seems reasonable.