Schizophrenic relation of British to the Jewish and Arab terrorism

[Bruriya]

("Schizophrenic" = here not literally, but as "two mutually exclusive opinions in one head" )
1 . The majority of British people still condemn the Jewish fight against English colonialists in 1944-47, call fighters terrorists. Though these terrorists almost never chose as the purpose the English civilian population, only occupational soldiers, officers, police officers and officials. It is necessary to remember also that English colonialists left "Palestine"/Country of Israel not voluntary, but now they demand to leave Jews from "the occupied Palestinian territories".

2. But, thus the majority of British people approve the Arab "/Palestinian" anti-Jewish terrorism (though the first purpose of this terror - the Jewish civilian population*. )
How British justify this double injustice? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...inian_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_...uicide_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalhevet_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hotel_seder_attack

[Ciciro]

Obviously it because they don't like Jews. No question about it.

[Stavroforos]

The Brits were more than happy to leave all their empire divided and with tensions, because that's the sort of people that they were.

[mongrel]

("Schizophrenic" = here not literally, but as "two mutually exclusive opinions in one head" )
1 . The majority of British people still condemn the Jewish fight against English colonialists in 1944-47, call fighters terrorists. Though these terrorists almost never chose as the purpose the English civilian population, only occupational soldiers, officers, police officers and officials. It is necessary to remember also that English colonialists left "Palestine"/Country of Israel not voluntary, but now they demand to leave Jews from "the occupied Palestinian territories".

2. But, thus the majority of British people approve the Arab "/Palestinian" anti-Jewish terrorism (though the first purpose of this terror - the Jewish civilian population*. )
How British justify this double injustice? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...inian_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_...uicide_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalhevet_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hotel_seder_attack

The first is an attack on British nationals. It is terrorism, regardless of your excuses. British people obviously don't like seeing their troops or civil servants slain.

The second is one set of foreigners killing another set of foreigners. Terrorism, but British people need not give a damn for either side.

But anyway what has this thread got to do with any current event?

[Lazzeer]

("Schizophrenic" = here not literally, but as "two mutually exclusive opinions in one head" )
1 . The majority of British people still condemn the Jewish fight against English colonialists in 1944-47, call fighters terrorists. Though these terrorists almost never chose as the purpose the English civilian population, only occupational soldiers, officers, police officers and officials. It is necessary to remember also that English colonialists left "Palestine"/Country of Israel not voluntary, but now they demand to leave Jews from "the occupied Palestinian territories".

2. But, thus the majority of British people approve the Arab "/Palestinian" anti-Jewish terrorism (though the first purpose of this terror - the Jewish civilian population*. )
How British justify this double injustice? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...inian_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_...uicide_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalhevet_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hotel_seder_attack

The majority of British people support explicitly terrorist actions by Palestinian groups? Any evidence for this? I mean I'm assuming here that you're not equating support for an independent Palestinian state with support for the murder of civilians?

[removeduser_487563287433]

("Schizophrenic" = here not literally, but as "two mutually exclusive opinions in one head" )
1 . The majority of British people still condemn the Jewish fight against English colonialists in 1944-47, call fighters terrorists. Though these terrorists almost never chose as the purpose the English civilian population, only occupational soldiers, officers, police officers and officials. It is necessary to remember also that English colonialists left "Palestine"/Country of Israel not voluntary, but now they demand to leave Jews from "the occupied Palestinian territories".

2. But, thus the majority of British people approve the Arab "/Palestinian" anti-Jewish terrorism (though the first purpose of this terror - the Jewish civilian population*. )
How British justify this double injustice? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...inian_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_...uicide_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalhevet_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hotel_seder_attack

My grandfather was a part of the mandate force in Palestine after the war, and narrowly avoided being murdered by Jewish terrorists when they blew up the HQ at the King David Hotel. I am assuming you think that act was justified?

[Denny Crane!]

My grandfather was a part of the mandate force in Palestine after the war, and narrowly avoided being murdered by Jewish terrorists when they blew up the HQ at the King David Hotel. I am assuming you think that act was justified?

He shows up every three months, posts propaganda and barely responds. He is basically a bot.

Why Ferrets why?

I need all of your energy devoted to bigot baiting porn of people who actually respond, for my entertainment you understand.

Seriously I am actually considering petitioning moderation to moderate users who are simply here for propaganda purposes, I realise that is vague as hell but I'll work on it.

[IZob]

Seriously I am actually considering petitioning moderation to moderate users who are simply here for propaganda purposes, I realise that is vague as hell but I'll work on it.

Sound like pretty good grounds to suspend or ban the account.

[Denny Crane!]

Sound like pretty good grounds to suspend or ban the account.

While that is absolutely true you may have someone going after Mongrel for say posting a bunch of anti EDL stuff.

Though personally I think this is very easy to distinguish because Mongrel clearly posts a great amount aside from this. I think a simple mathematical "value" equation could be used for this.

A=Number of propaganda posts

B=Number of other posts

C=result (=ban)

To late can't think of a decent equation (either/or at maths?). Someone help me out?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

While that is absolutely true you may have someone going after Mongrel for say posting a bunch of anti EDL stuff.

Though personally I think this is very easy to distinguish because Mongrel clearly posts a great amount aside from this. I think a simple mathematical "value" equation could be used for this.

A=Number of propaganda posts

B=Number of other posts

C=result (=ban)

To late can't think of a decent equation (either/or at maths?). Someone help me out?

I think some sort of formula like this, maybe over a certain percentage? And i think it could be made quite clear what Propaganda posts mean. I mean honestly here i was going to reply, but with what? Their isn't really much scope for discussion. The OP has clearly gone with one very bias view and the wording also shows their not going to be exactly accepting of any views to the contrary, so possible discussion will be cut short, and the whole thing will devolve very fast.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Well blowing up things with civilians inside is terrorism.When Hamas blows up a bus = terrorism.When Jewish groups blow up a hotel = terrorism.

[Denny Crane!]

And this is what happens every time he posts, they never generate discussion as they are so politburo.

Now what I am telling you is that subjective judgement is a natural and inevitable/fundamental facet of moderation so you have to trust them to make that judgement. An element of trust is just the way it works. You can lay out some wording..."a post clearly intended to provoke no discussion but to relay a specific propaganda laden message" or something far better staff could come up with, that was never my forte.

[Tiberios]

As the OP offers insufficient basis for a discussion, I'm closing the thread.