Looks like Netanyahu is going to be a minister without portfolio in U.S. public affairs for the next few months, until November anyway. He sent a letter to Obama about the Colorado shooting victims. Israel National News calls them “terror victims”:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sent condolences to Colorado’s “Batman” terror victims, “We well understand the pain and loss that you are experiencing,” he said.
“I send my condolences and those of the Israeli people to the families of the Americans who were murdered in Aurora, Colorado, and my wishes for a full and rapid recovery to those who were wounded,” he said in his message.
Gruesome, sick and utterly repulsive. Can’t wait to get on the bandwagon with his synthetic sympathy. Never misses a chance to try and score a propaganda point, as he implicitly seeks to bind Israeli victimhood with victims of a psychopath. At the exact same time he is preening and posing on the US networks, seeking more young Americans lives to be sacrificed on the altar of zionist ideology. Yahoo, you don’t understand a thing, your ruthless exploitation of young American lives is spectacularly offensive. Kick him out.
Why not terrorism victims ?
Or is it that terror should only be applied when there are concrete political goals
behind it. Like establishing the new Chalifate .
Why not terrorism victims ? — OlegR
Maybe because, as Americans, we continue to get by with old-fashioned terms like ‘mass murder’ or ‘spree killing,’ without (yet) resorting to the escalated, hyperbolic security state nomenclature currently being urged upon us by our Most Specialest BFF Ally. I don’t doubt we will soon start calling such events “terrorism,” given what Scott McConnell aptly calls the “transmission belt” presently injecting a steady stream of warped Israeli ideas into our political/media/think tank cerebral cortex.
BTW, in Israel, if a Jew kills other Jews, how many victims must there be for it to be deemed an incident of “terrorism?”
As we all know, if the perpetrator is Palestinian/Arab/Muslim, the answer is: one.
Don’t play dumb, OlegR.
Let’s see, Webster’s definition of terrorism: (n) the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion; Google’s definition: (n) The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aim; Wiktionary’s definition: (n) the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Princeton’s definition: (n) the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Did the Batman shooter have political or religious or ideological motives? If yes, we can call him a terrorist. If not, then we can call him a crazy freak killer.
Perhaps the Colorado shooter was motivated by opposition to superhero ideology which is most succinctly expressed by the motto of Superman: “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”.
“…Did the Batman shooter have political or religious or ideological motives? If yes, we can call him a terrorist. If not, then we can call him a crazy freak killer.”
He’d attended a Hasbara training camp.
Because the guy had no political motive and was obviously mentally ill.
Interesting.
As of yet, no political motive has come forth for the attack in Bulgaria.
I submit that the bomber was merely mentally ill.
The irony is that the bomber probably was mentally ill.
Look at the shoe bomber et al. However one wants to define the causal relationship, these people are picking up on ‘al Qaeda’ as offering a justification for behavior I would argue they are disposed to engage in in the first place.
This isn’t to dismiss the effects of al Qaeda propaganda — but we do have some rather selective perception taking place here. Breivik, presumably the theater killer are ‘crazy.’ If, on the other hand, the killer professes an ‘Islamic’ motivation, then it’s part of a sinister global plot.
“Why not terrorism victims ?
Or is it that terror should only be applied when there are concrete political goals
behind it. Like establishing the new Chalifate .”
Terrorism refers only to attacks directed against Israelis or members of nations that support Israel.
Since we have no reason to suspect that this individual opposes Israel, there’s no reason to label him a terrorist.
ColinWright, you are wrong.
Anyone who mass murders civilians for the purpose of mass murdering civilians is a terrorist. When Osama Bin Laden murdered thousands of civilians in Gilgit Kashmir in 1988, that was terrorism too.
How about when Ariel Sharon murdered thousands of civilians in Chantilla and Sabra? Was that terrorism as well? It would seem to be. I quote your definition:
“Anyone who mass murders civilians for the purpose of mass murdering civilians is a terrorist.”
ColinWright says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Terrorism refers only to attacks directed against Israelis or members of nations that support Israel.
Since we have no reason to suspect that this individual opposes Israel, there’s no reason to label him a terrorist.”
HAHAHA! Excellent. :D
Although he really ought to have called first. Perhaps Bibi the Humanist could be persuaded to adopt him; just a few short months in the Tzahal, and he could become a terrorist and a murderer with morals that are simply world-class.
It’s truly disheartening when it’s left to the Russian usurper to ask the pertinent question (regardless of his intent).
It is perfectly acceptable to refer to Holmes as a terrorist , and to refer to his actions as terrorism, whether his motive was a political one, or not.
Terrorist: 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others
Terrorize: 1. to fill or overcome with terror
Terrorism: 2. the act of terrorizing 3. the state of being terrorized
No, the real reason the American media are unwilling to refer to Holmes as a terrorist has far less to do with proper English usage, and everything to do with the continual co-opting of the English Language by the powers that be.
In America, nowadays, it’s only those people who can’t pass for White who get to be terrorists, Muslims excepted.
“In America, nowadays, it’s only those people who can’t pass for White who get to be terrorists, Muslims excepted.”
Be fair. We take no notice — at least no public notice — if the killer is Black or Asian or Hispanic (have Hispanics gotten in on this yet?).
It’s actually primarily Muslims who get to be terrorists.
ColinWright, you have a point. Even Michael Savage says that Mexican illegal immigrants are not violent or terrorists. (He still wants them to only come to the US legally.)
By contrast there has been an increase in anti muslim prejudice since 2009.
>> Or is it that terror should only be applied when there are concrete political goals behind it. Like establishing the new Chalifate .
“the new Chalifate” – is that what Zio-supremacists are calling Israel these days? Man, is there nothing you guys won’t steal from ‘the Arabs’?! ;-)
‘Or is it that terror should only be applied when there are concrete political goals
behind it.’
Yes, that’s it. If a deranged Israeli (Jewish) walked into a move theater in Tel Aviv and started shooting, Israelis would call him a madman or mass murderer, not a terrorist. Netanyahu’s analogy was also objectionable because it seemed exploitative — an attempt to promote political goals and not simply to express sympathy.
“They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.”
President Obama’s remarks concerning said shooting. Fitting they may be for victims of his and Netanyahus war crimes
Netanyahu: We well understand the pain and loss that you are experiencing”
Because, twelve people shot dead, that is our monthly average in Gaza.
Or half a drone strike.
From link to openchannel.msnbc.msn.com
Holmes isn’t Jewish, however.
And the shoe bomber wasn’t Arab. You’re not fooling us.
“It’s very good. [...] Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”
All I can say is: “Thank God, the shooter wasn’t a muslim or someone that can be contrived to be linked to Iran!”
Had he been a muslim, I am not sure I could stand the blaring media carnival that would ensue!
That is not to say, that such a false flag is not in the works…
“…That is not to say, that such a false flag is not in the works…”
…Or that it isn’t perfectly possible that a Muslim will commit such a crime.
Muslims comprise a fifth of humanity. Logically, every fifth mass killing should be carried out by a Muslim.
Moreover, given that a loonie will pick up on whatever rationalizations are on offer for his actions, I can assume that it’s fairly likely that a Muslim loonie would offer some ‘Jihadi’ rationale for his actions.
And then you’ll have ‘Islamic terrorism.’ As a rule, when other nuts go off, it’s an inexplicable tragedy, or at most an argument for gun control. If the nut happens to be Muslim, it’s got a fair to excellent chance of being ‘Islamic terrorism.’
Where’s Moses to tell us how great guns are?
Dan, in America, guns have more rights than people, and any person can avail himself of these rights by getting a gun. We worship the gun. Remember, it’s been starring in film and TV roles for almost a hundred years. Something like that builds a hell of a public following.
Everybody keeps on going on about how crazy, how angry, this shooter was. How crazy do you have to be to want to kill people? Not very, people want other people to die all the time. How angry do you need to be to pull a trigger? Really, it’s not a lot of effort, and if the gun is “auto”, you only have to do it once. How crazy and angry do you have to be to be disconnected between your own actions and the pain you are causing others (I’m talking about the friends and loved ones, the dead can’t feel pain, or complain about it. Score another point for the gun)? Heck, loads of people are like that.
So the point is, guns don’t kill people guns are heroes who want to keep us safe and protect us. Don’t you watch TV? Besides, he could have done the same thing with a knife or baseball bat, or even his fists! And just think, would it be fair to punish this guy, too awfully harshly? Think of the pain and embarrassment the gun will feel. And after all its done for us, why not give it a break?
Mooser – are you Charlton Heston’s ghost?
@ Dan Crowther
Perhaps if someone had a gun in that movie theater, they could have stopped James Holmes before he shot 70+ people.
C&D – Who is to say the person would have fired their weapon? Most soldiers in combat don’t, I wouldn’t put my money on some civilian in a theater.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others with weapons on them, but never pulled them out. the answer to guns cant be more guns.
Dan Crowther, Mahatma Gandhi believed that police shouldn’t use violence. Rather if they came across a rape or murder or other crime in progress they should use nonviolent means. Including inspiring the person committing the crime to stop with the power of their own example.
Is this your position as well?
Would you like Gandhi never have a negative thought about someone even if that someone tortures and kills off everyone in your religion, country, culture and civilization in front of you. Would you continue to send the person committing these atrocities your love and respect the entire time?
If so, then kudos to you. Your path is a very tough one. The world is better off with people like you in it.
He had bullett proof clothing on, and would probably have shot such a person. There is no answer in wishing for more guns. Why are people able to stockpile such a cache of arms and ammunition with not a single question being asked? Since when were semi-automatic weapons necessary for ‘sport’?
“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others with weapons on them, but never pulled them out.”
Well, Dan, I think there was one guy who did. He used the melee and panic as a chance to put a bullet through his wife, and left. He’s sitting home now, pretending to mourn, and praying the coroner’s office will be overloaded, and won’t compare all the bullets.
Maybe some of the other people had guns, but made a judgement that they would not help.
But, Dan, as you know, when a person’s lifetime experience with firing guns in anger (or getting fired) at consists of watching TV shows and movies, they get some really strange ideas about guns and how they are used. Thank God we don’t have any of those idiots here!
And then of course, there are the wonderful people who recommend “proper gun safety training. It is one of the great suppressed secret of psychotherapy that gun safety training is a mental panacea! Cures everything! Prevents jealousy, envy, hatred, mob and organised crime connections, financial arguments, depression, mental breakdown and even cure psychopathy. It even prevents mistakes and accidental firings! But the psychologists won’t acknowledge that because they would lose money!
“Since when were semi-automatic weapons necessary for ‘sport’?”
They’re not necessary for sport. They’re necessary to make it difficult for a police state to suppress popular unrest.
Think about if every Palestinian had an M-16.
Holmes had a helmet and body armor, so it would not be that easy. Also, it took some time for people to realize that this was not a “super-villain” stunt, and the viewers, logically enough, were waiting for the Batman.
Guns or no guns, he could have entered the theatre through the propped open exit and planted some high explosive devices doing more damage than any guns.
“Guns or no guns, he could have entered the theatre through the propped open exit and planted some high explosive devices doing more damage than any guns.”
And where’s the fun in that? Just stand a couple blocks away and wait for the boom? How does that compare with pointing, shooting, and seeing the person crumple?
You wouldn’t even hear the screams. Chu, you amuse pretty easy, huh?
Anan – I’m not a pacifist, and truthfully not a big admirer of Gandhi (and especially the cult of worship that has sprung up around him) so, no i wouldnt want someone to be non-violent in the face of violence against them or their family and so on.
I am of the opinion that in this case, more guns in that theater would not have helped – the guy was armored etc, the smoke grenades etc. anyone looking to take the shooter out could have done even more harm.
Having fired all sort of weapons in the service, I think I got my boyhood gun lust out of my system; I dont see a use for them in civilized society – and when the “gun safety” people and the “but if someone had a gun” people start chiming in, I get frustrated, because their arguments dont seem to take into account the ‘externalities’ of any given situation. So for example, a person with a gun can be disarmed, robbed, not fire their weapon and get killed as a result – if their weapons are at home, their home could be robbed (if Im a crook, what better house to rob than the house with the cars with NRA stickers? just wait for them to leave…) or their kids can find their safe key and so on.
I have no idea how we got from “well regulated militia” to that A-hole Congressman saying “high capacity magazines for assault rifles are protected by the second amendment” but I am of the opinion that anyone who tries to mitigate the absurdity of private citizen (non hunting weapon) gun ownership is part of the problem.
Dan Crowther, I think I understand where you are coming from. Some people say they have a right to bear arms from the 2nd Amendment. What would you tell them if anything?
I would tell them this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
————————————
The key thing here being that the goal of the amendment was a “well regulated militia” – and in a well regulated militia, you would have an armory, that would store weapons and keep them under lock and key.
Im a former Marine, so I know a thing or two about having a weapon on me, pretty much at all times – but even in the Marine Corps, I couldn’t “keep” my rifle on my person or in my barracks while in garrison, I had to keep it with the other rifles of the company, in a guarded armory. This idea that a private citizen has a right to not only “have” a weapon, but “keep” it under any conditions he/she sees fit (in a wooden gun cabinet in your home for example) is patently absurd. You want to “have” guns? Join a gun club with an armory, or a “well regulated militia” that would also, have an armory.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Dull, but the first part of this doesn’t modify the second.
If I say, ‘since I needed to get some cigarettes, I went to the bar,’ you might be able to prove that I hadn’t actually needed any cigarettes.
I still went to the bar. Similarly, whatever rationale Congress chose to offer, they still created an unqualified right to bear arms. There’s really only one possible interpretation of ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ That would be, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Back in the good old days, folks like John Brown used to drag around small cannon with them. I have a constitutional right to bear any arm I wish. This can be decried as insane. You can point out that the original intent was to make possible ‘a well-regulated militia.’ I still have an unqualified right to bear arms. You cannot pass any law that infringes upon it unless and until you amend the Constitution.
This guy is such an oily opportunist, he makes Romney look authentic.
I remember years ago he would coin phrases like “green light to terror” that I guess were supposed to appeal to the FOX News crowd and repeat them them endlessly.
Maybe what Israel needs is some new blood. Can’t they get a PM in his or her early forties to replace this 1967/Entebbe/Beirut old guard and their stale ideas?
I guess Romney found his running mate.
Yishai or Lieberman would be more to my taste — but Netanyahu is sufficient. I’m happy with him at the helm.
Is it possible that Bibi is being genuine and authentic? Shouldn’t we give him the benefit of the doubt?
It’s also possible he’s actually a tea pot orbiting the sun. However, I find it unlikely.
@ ColinWright
Oh, I was hoping everyone would just ignore his spamming every thread, including dead ones with his juvenile and pathetic comments so that he would get bored and move on, but you just couldn’t resist getting a dig in! ;-)
ColinWright, it is human to feel compassion and empathy. When any of us see children hurt or killed, don’t almost all of us think about our own nephews, nieces, and children?
“ColinWright, it is human to feel compassion and empathy. When any of us see children hurt or killed, don’t almost all of us think about our own nephews, nieces, and children?”
Yeah — you’re right!
I remember, during ‘Cast Lead’ when those pictures of murdered children came out, there was that massive revulsion of feeling throughout Israel.
‘What are we doing? My God…’
Wasn’t the operation immediately called off? IIRC, Netanyahu was on TV, tears of remorse streaming down his cheeks…
ColinWright, Israelis are a good and decent people. Many Israelis must have felt this way. But I don’t remember Bibi being one of them.
I don’t understand why Bibi doesn’t love and respect Palestinians as much as he loves and respects Israelis.
Come on, now you’re just trolling, or being wilfully stupid.
>> Is it possible that Bibi is being genuine and authentic?
Yes, it’s possible that he’s being genuinely and authentically opportunistic. (I don’t recall the last time he sent condolences to victims of ON-GOING Israeli terrorism.)
You can give the benefit of doubt to people whose track record justifies it. Needless to say Yahoo’s track record in deceit and deception is overwhelming – in that sense he is being ‘authentic’.
What would Netanyahu’s (and America’s reaction) be if this was in the news (Would it be considered merely ‘intriguing’)?
James Holmes: Cinema Killer is a Muslim “Big Brother.”
The arrested terrorist, James Holmes, was known for his pronounced Islamic sympathies. He spent a significant part of time at an obscure organization which billed itself as the “Muslim Big Brothers Big Sisters of Los Angeles” . He worked as a “counsellor” at this Muslim organization, in charge of entertaining and indoctrinating young children. According to a spokesman for the Muslim Big Brothers Big Sisters, Holmes was in charge of the “the care and guidance of a group of approximately 10 children” at the Muslim “summer camp.” The ‘camp’ is strategically located near Glendale. The spokesman for the Muslim organization did not hide that fact that Holmes taught the young Muslims “how to work in small teams to effect positive outcomes.”
That background, in part, has left those who know Holmes trying to process how his experience with the Muslim Big Brothers contributed to what happened Friday morning.
Here is the text from the Actual Article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0722-colorado-shooting-suspect-20120722,0,6207253.story?page=2
Holmes “worked one summer as a counselor at a camp for underprivileged children. The chief executive at Camp Max Straus said Holmes worked there in 2008 and “had no incidents or disciplinary concerns.”
In a statement to The Times, Randy Schwab, chief executive of Jewish Big Brothers Big Sisters of Los Angeles and director of Camp Max Straus, wrote that Holmes was responsible for “the care and guidance of a group of approximately 10 children” at the camp, in the hills above Glendale.
“His role was to ensure that these children had a wonderful camp experience by helping them learn confidence, self-esteem and how to work in small teams to effect positive outcomes,” he said. In a later e-mail, he added: “That summer provided the kids a wonderful camp experience without incident.”
That background, in part, has left those who know Holmes trying to process what happened Friday morning.”