Some mad videos emerging from Bondi beach in Sydney. Gun man opened fire. Seems to have been arrested from the videos I've seen, looks like multiple casualties.
Threadbanned posters
AugustRain
freebritney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
I agree. I didn't have you down as a devout atheist either. Respect.
Did you ever use the 5 Whys methodology for establishing root cause?
Why #1: Why do some muslims become terrorists and murder people?
There are many Israelis and Jews both inside and outside Israel who utterly condemn the actions of their Govt.
Jewish leaders, academics, religious and Holocaust survivors have condemned Israel's actions in Gaza and the occupied territories.
A Major General "leaked" the video of the IDF sodomising a Palestinian prisoner. She has been apprehended and either has or will be charged.
Israelis attempted to assist Palestinians in the West Bank gather in their olive harvest. They were prevented doing so by Israeli Police.
The fact is that many Israelis and Jews abhor what is being done "in their name". But alleged War Criminal #1 (at large) throws out the antisemitism charges like snuff at a wake. Apparently, the attacks on Maccabi Haifa fans in Amsterdam was a "pogrom". One of them lost a tooth. Ben-Gvir, minister for security and a convicted terrorist and racist is pushing through a bill to bring in the death penalty for terrorists (the irony) but only for Palestinians. He wore a gold "noose" lapel pin to the debates.
The point of all the above - there are plenty of Israelis and Jews that abhor violence and just want to live in peace - however that may be achieved. Likewise, there are Palestinians who want the same. But the current Israeli govt. foments racism, apartheid and violence. It even admonishes its own people for not toeing the party line. By accusing entire nations of antisemitism, pogroms and blood libels (Ireland being a key target), the world becomes "sensitised" in face of atrocities in Gaza broadcast in 4K.
And that is utterly abhorrent - real antisemitism gets diluted and Jews suffer for it precisely as you posted.
"Antisemitism used to be someone who doesn't like Jews. Now it's someone who Jews don't like"
That’s a bit of a reductive and (if you’ll forgive me) irrelevant analogy - neither world war was started in the name of Christianity or in the pursuit of Christian doctrine. The fact that they were started by countries that are largely Christian is incidental. The same cannot be said of Islamic terrorism
So, using the same logic, it's not antisemitic to express condemnation of the Israeli govt., the IDF, the Settlers and other Israeli/Jewish extremists - it's just expressing the truth. Correct?
Absolutely not, fixed the last line to be sure it isn't picked up wrong.
Jews anywhere are not responsible for Israeli crimes. They have absolutely no say over policy. Those responsible for war crimes are Israeli leadership and military, because they are the ones who committed the crimes, Jewish or otherwise.
Genuine antisemites want to hold all Jews collectively responsible for these. I have no doubt that is why the people on Bondi beach were targeted. These crimes are on them.
But that is also the rhetoric of pro Israeli posters, politicians, and other Western leaders
They use antisemitism accusations against those who criticise Israeli policy, which the experts tell us amount to genocidal acts. Their rhetoric does nothing else but tell us these are Jewish crimes (rather than Israeli), as it makes it harder to proceed with prosecution if they can take the crimes out of the hands of those that did it and facilitated it.
Both povs (though done for different reasons), are in affect antisemetic and both give greater risk to Jewish communities everywhere, including the community that suffered this attack.
Not to someone who is driven by hate because of that action though. Which is obviously what happened.
Over there, not here. Big difference.
The Jewish people are fairly attacking them in Gaza. Might not be the West but it has a terrible effect on the lunatic fringe outside of the ME as we saw yesterday. How are they a persistent problem exactly ?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-settlers-torch-a-mosque-and-scrawl-hateful-messages-despite-official-condemnation
Great post, right up until the last sentence, unless I am missing something.
Are you saying Australian Jews are responsible?
I think it is fair to say the state of Israel bears some responsibility — without justifying the attack -- though I think it's a bit of a leap to extend that to Jews in another country.
Even if the victims conflated calls for peace or Palestinian rights with anti-semitism, I could not say they are responsible for being murdered.
The moral responsibility lies with the attackers, though Israel's genocide was likely a factor in their radicalisation.
People can dance around the issue all they want but it’s pretty much always islamists doing the terror attacks in the West. For a minority in a country they are persistently a problem. How many Jewish people are attacking Mosques in the West…., funny that.
If he was radicalised since 2019 and not involved in any forms of terrorism that we or the Australian authorities know of - with him having easy access to a hoard of weapons in the 6 years since - does it not strongly suggest that something that occurred recently resulted in him going on this killing spree. The genocide in Gaza perhaps ?
Jewish Australians and the Israeli state are not the same thing, and Jews worldwide are not responsible for the actions of Israel’s government or military. They have no power over Israel's state policy. We can all agree right?
Responsibility for any war crimes or other violations lies with the decision-makers (i.e. Israel politicians and military) , not Jews around the world, right?
In agreement I'm sure.
Now, we can move to reactions to criticism of these crimes.
Almost all institutions and experts in this thing tell us Israel's crimes amount to genocidal acts in Gaza. They are impartial, experienced and are important proponents of international humanitarian law, there to protect us all.
If you frame the experts, and those that believe them, those speaking out, those protesting these crimes as antisemetic for doing this (I have seen dozens and dozens of accusations on here and not one iota of proof) you are attributing crimes committed by the Israeli state to Jews around the world.
If Israeli politicians (and other Western leaders) do this, as they have done hundreds of times, they are doing the same thing; collapsing the Jewish identity into Israeli violence and encouraging collective blame.
They do this to make it harder to make Israeli politicians (and their backers) be held accountable for their crimes, throwing the safety of Jews around the world under the bus so they can avoid prosecution.
Does anybody here genuinely not understand this?
You cannot say that Jews worldwide are not Israel, and then claim that criticism of Israel’s crimes is an attack on Jews, as so many of you pathetically engage in. Those two positions contradict each other.
pol pot, Stalin, Mao all atheist ! great record their
Equating blame to justification is exactly what you said. As it it seems you are now withdrawing that statement, we have no disagreement.
I'm afraid you are getting very confused. I never said blame was the same as justification. Nor did I say Hitler or the terrorists were partly justified. I was saying that was the implication of what another poster said. Maybe take a break and then read back over the conversation.
There's a video showing the guy who jumped the shooter and I've read he was shot 2 times. Did the other shooter shoot him after he took the gun from the first guy? And I thought the shooters were on a bridge together?
Not sure what your first sentence is supposed to mean, please correct it — or are you now backtracking and saying blame is not the same as justification? The Treaty of Versailles was a factor in World War II starting, due to the unfair terms, for many Germans the first war never ended, it was just suspended and later continued. This is not the same thing as justifying the war, the rise of Hitler, or Nazism. The only person here saying Hitler or the terrorists in Sydney were partially justified is you.Blame != Justification.
Blame != Justification.
Who is blaming the victims? This all started long before 7 October.
It is not saying that blame is the same as justification.
Let's take one of these examples:
The Treaty of Versailles contributing to conditions that enabled Hitler's rise is partially justifying Nazism.
True, but that is not what the poster is saying. It is more akin to saying that the Allied side in the first world war are partly morally responsible for the Nazism by upsetting Hitler in their demands for reparations. This is different to the the Treaty of Versailles merely being an impersonal contributory factor. It is in a sense a kind of partial justification. Hitler was partly justified because he was unjustly provoked by the treaty is the implication here.
This kind of argument was used by Sinn Fein during the Troubles along the lines of "Yes, it is regrettable that these people died during the explosion but the responsibility lies with the British for their treatment of…". This is an attempt to justify the IRAs actions by putting the blame on another group for provoking them.
Blame shifting.
He was born before 1948? I highly doubt that to be the case! Or are you just referring to the most recent (and ongoing) war in Gaza.
As a devout atheist I would too, and I really hope future generations will shake this evil off. But we cannot ignore the fact that religion shaped the world as it is today, and Christianity for all its defects managed to build a better world than any others. Indeed, as you say, some religions are "just jerseys now". But not all of them, and clearly not islam (again, just as you said it), for most of its followers it's still a religion to be followed by the letter.
Where did you see anyone blaming victims ? I would be interested in reading that post.
Some people and states use the religious book to try to justify evil deeds. There is a lot of brutality in these so-called holy books. There is nothing holy or justifiable about killing innocent people.
It seems like the younger guy was radicalised long before the war in Gaza and was on the police radar in 2019. But sure let's just blame the victims
I read your comment and I don't see where the poster is wrong. Maybe you need to explain yourself better.
True: Israeli actions in Gaza → Radicalisation → Increased likelihood of attacks False: Blame → Justification Understanding the difference between blame and justification does not require much thought, on my part. Let me show you where your blame-shifting framework falls apart. Your claim that identifying any upstream factor in radicalisation justifies it would make it impossible to identify the root cause of any political violence without being accused of endorsing it. We can demonstrate the absurdity of the logical fallacy that blame is the same as justification with substitution:The Iraq War contributing to the radicalisation that produced ISIS is partially justifying ISIS attacks. The Treaty of Versailles contributing to conditions that enabled Hitler's rise is partially justifying Nazism. You are insisting blame means justification because you cannot see the difference or you choose not to as it is contrary to your narrative.
Israeli actions in Gaza → Radicalisation → Increased likelihood of attacks
Blame → Justification
Yet we have heard many Israeli Govt members say that all Gazans are guilty and then carrying out collective punishment and we have seen posters here say that Islam is a religion of hate. If someone said that all Jewish people were complicit in the Gaza genocide that would not be correct either because there's plenty of them protesting about it. Collective punishment is evil and that's why you have lunatics acting like those two did yesterday.
The Provos had one beef with one country and it was a domestic issue not an imported issue.
Radical Islam in europe and the west and the religion as a whole in europe and the west is an imported issue, it doesn't have to be here in the first place.
Again Radical Islam has destroyed numerous countries all over the world so why would we want to risk it gaining any place in the west.
Once again you fail to see that I was merely using them as an example of why it is good security practice to do extra checks to certain countries that may have a terrorist threat originating from them. So I don't care if the percentage is lower or higher the fact is if there is a terrorist risk from certain subsection of society then extra precautions have to be taken when dealing with people from that background fair or otherwise.
