[moki]

So much for the US being "utterly biased" towards Israel...

from: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rnet_groups_dc

.....

Web Sites Listed as 'Terror' Groups

Fri Oct 10,12:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has added Web sites to its list of "foreign terrorist organizations" for the first time, under the category of aliases for conventional groups, a State Department official said on Friday.

A list published in the Federal Register includes newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians.

Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites, the people who run them could be denied U.S. visas and U.S. banks must block their funds. The State Department said it was yet clear how this would work in practice.

But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons.

[eklipse]

Let me know when they start bombing them.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Let me know when they start bombing them.

The US doesn't "bomb" the Palestinians, either, and indeed have long actively held Israel back.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
The US doesn't "bomb" the Palestinians, either, and indeed have long actively held Israel back.

LOL! You think Israel could have bombed Syria without Washington approval?
Perhaps the US hasn't directly bombed the Palestinians but they certainly helped equip Israel with the ability to do so.

As for them adding Jewish organisations to their list of 'terror groups', it's a gimmick. If they were serious then why aren't the countries that harbour them included in Bush's 'War on Terror'?

[macvillage.net]

Now if Israel doesn't remove these people, whom still exist:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/kkc.html

Under the Bush Doctorine, we are obligated to invade and do it for them.

One would hope.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
The US doesn't "bomb" the Palestinians, either,....

: cough : Iraq : cough : Afghanistan : cough :

and indeed have long actively held Israel back.

Really? When? This week? Last week?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If they were serious then why aren't the countries that harbour them included in Bush's 'War on Terror'?

Heh.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
LOL! You think Israel could have bombed Syria without Washington approval?

Certainly. Israel operates independently all the time. The 1956 war comes to mind. Infuriated Eisenhower it did.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Certainly. Israel operates independently all the time.

How wrong you are.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
How wrong you are.

I say how wrong you are.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Certainly. Israel operates independently all the time. The 1956 war comes to mind. Infuriated Eisenhower it did. [/B]

And since then?



Israel is the US's B**ch.

And

America is Israel's B**ch.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Israel is the US's B**ch.

And

America is Israel's B**ch.

Damn right.

[Uday's Carcass]

such eloquence and deep thought, Robert. I'm amazed how you do it.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
LOL! You think Israel could have bombed Syria without Washington approval?

Yes, actually I do. The US had harsh words for the action, if you recall.

As much as the US is demonized for the situation in Palestine (the mandate was actually a UK proposal in the UN), if the US did not restrain Israel, the situation would be much, much different.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, actually I do. The US had harsh words for the action, if you recall.

As much as the US is demonized for the situation in Palestine (the mandate was actually a UK proposal in the UN), if the US did not restrain Israel, the situation would be much, much different.

Actually. the closed to harsh words was actually cautious support

"Israel has the right to defend itself, but should consider the consequences of any action it takes."

The state department backed Israel completely.

[Spliffdaddy]

Shouldn't the UK be 'fixing' their own problems?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

The UK creates problems then the individual countries pretend it isn't their problem.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
The US doesn't "bomb" the Palestinians, either, and indeed have long actively held Israel back.

this is perhaps the most politically naive statement I've ever seen you post.

[sideus]

Jewish FTOs have been on the list for years.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, actually I do. The US had harsh words for the action, if you recall.

As much as the US is demonized for the situation in Palestine (the mandate was actually a UK proposal in the UN), if the US did not restrain Israel, the situation would be much, much different.

I just read that the US provided help, inteligence to Israel for the bombings.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
I just read that the US provided help, inteligence to Israel for the bombings.

Just read? Or a few days ago when the story broke?

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by moki:
So much for the US being "utterly biased" towards Israel...

from: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rnet_groups_dc

.....

Web Sites Listed as 'Terror' Groups

Fri Oct 10,12:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has added Web sites to its list of "foreign terrorist organizations" for the first time, under the category of aliases for conventional groups, a State Department official said on Friday.

A list published in the Federal Register includes newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach, which is suspected of organizing attacks on Palestinians.

Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites, the people who run them could be denied U.S. visas and U.S. banks must block their funds. The State Department said it was yet clear how this would work in practice.

But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons.

These organizations owe their origins to Meir Kahane, a Jewish extremist.

Some Infromation on Kahane and the JDL Here

[einmakom]

Some education is in order, my dear friends.

Even Israel herself does not support Kach (Kahane Chai) - indeed, this party was only able to hold seat in the Knesset for one term before being subject to a law amended solely to keep them from being in office:

March 3, 1994

THE KACH MOVEMENT - BACKGROUND

In 1968, Rabbi Meir Kahane established the Jewish Defense League, the forerunner of the Kach movement. The declared goal of the movement at the time was to combat black antisemitism.

In September 1969, Kahane immigrated to Israel. Though he had declared that once in Israel he would not engage in politics, he spoke out against the black Jews in Dimona, and later openly advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel. One of his first campaigns against Arabs was in 1972, when he distributed pamphlets in Hebron calling upon the mayor to stand trial for his part in the massacre of the Jews in Hebron in 1929.

The Kach movement first sought election to the Knesset in 1973, but received only about 13,000 votes, which were not enough to win a seat. Two years later Kahane returned to his activities in Hebron, this time calling for the expulsion of the Arabs from the city.

In the 1977 Knesset elections, Kach received less than 4,500 votes. In 1980, Kahane was sentenced to six months in prison for plotting with others to commit a grave act of provocation on the Temple Mount. In 1981, Kach once again failed to introduce any of its members into the Knesset.

During the evacuation of the Israeli settlers from Yamit in 1982, Kahane gained popularity. At the government's request, he helped convince some extremists in Yamit who had barricaded themselves in the synagogue and threatened to commit suicide to withdraw their ultimatum.

When the Kach movement submitted its list for the 1984 Knesset elections, the Central Elections Committee ruled that could not participate in the elections. Kach appealed to the High Court of Justice, and its appeal was upheld. The court ruled that the existing electoral law did not allow for the debarring of a party on the grounds of racism. The Court further suggested that the law be amended.

The Kach movement thus ran for election in 1984, winning 26,000 votes, and Kahane became a member of Knesset. He announced that Kach would not support any government that did not advocate the expulsion of the Arabs from Israel.

In August 1985, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Basic Law: The Knesset, in accordance with the High Court's comment in the Kach case. The amendment added incitemnet to racism as grounds for barring a party from participating in elections. The law now states as follows:

'A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people; 2) negation of the democratic character of the State; 3) incitement to racism.'

Accordingly, in 1988, prior to the elections to the 12th Knesset, the Central Elections Committee disqualified the Kach list, basing its decision on the above amendment. In his appeal to the High Court of Justice, Kahane claimed that security needs justify severe measures of discrimination against Arabs. The Court rejected the claim and the appeal, stating that the aims and actions of Kach are manifestly racist.

On November 5, 1991, Meir Kahane was murdered in New York. There are two movements which follow in his footsteps: 'Kahane Lives', led by his son Benjamin Kahane, based in the settlement Tapuah; and 'Kach' led by Baruch Marzel, based in Kiryat Arba.

Both movements were disqualified by the Central Elections Committee in the 1992 elections. Both appealed to the High Court of Justice, which rejected their appeals, ruling that they are followers of the original Kach movement.

In November 1992, following the movements' support of the grenade attack in the butchers' market in the Old City of Jerusalem, Minister Amnon Rubinstein asked the Attorney-General to initiate a criminal proceedings against the leaders of the two movements, on the charge of incitement to terrorism.

As you can see, Israel's government will not tolerate racist parties to stand for election, and will not tolerate terrorism within it's borders.

(Strangely I should note that it does continue to allow those in the Knesset who sympathize with Mr. Arafat in his hatred of the Israeli state, so obviously the enforcement of the law is not perfect.)

But no, Israel does not tolerate terrorist actions by KahaneChai, Kach, or other groups descended from the original.

Crow all you please, my friends, but Israel addressed this as early as 1985 when it passed the amendment to disallow Kahane's party from running.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Some education is in order, my dear friends.

Even Israel herself does not support Kach (Kahane Chai) - indeed, this party was only able to hold seat in the Knesset for one term before being subject to a law amended solely to keep them from being in office:




As you can see, Israel's government will not tolerate racist parties to stand for election, and will not tolerate terrorism within it's borders.

(Strangely I should note that it does continue to allow those in the Knesset who sympathize with Mr. Arafat in his hatred of the Israeli state, so obviously the enforcement of the law is not perfect.)

But no, Israel does not tolerate terrorist actions by KahaneChai, Kach, or other groups descended from the original.

Crow all you please, my friends, but Israel addressed this as early as 1985 when it passed the amendment to disallow Kahane's party from running.

Why does this group still exist?

The Taliban said they didn't harbor terrorism... they were still responsible.

Israel claims they don't support terrorism.... they still harbor it (both this, and their own military).

Bush himself said he will make *no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them*.

The US has an obligation, to Israeli and Palestinian civilians, and adequate reason to enter and deal with this.

Give it 12-18 months of US rule, and we will clean it up. Regime changes, and all. That will be the end of it.

THAT would help fight terrorism world wide.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Shouldn't the UK be 'fixing' their own problems?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

The UK creates problems then the individual countries pretend it isn't their problem.

?

Which problem do you want the UK to fix? The USA? I thought that you would be grateful for us allowing you your independence, but do I interpret this as a request for reintegration into the British Empire? Does poor little Spliff feel lonely out there on his own in his poor little country?

Well, I'm afraid that you are on your own. We have a tradition of establishing independent nations when we allow people to leave the Empire, we don't send the rest of eternity molly-coddling them.

The same goes for Israel. And if you want my advice, the US should leave them alone too.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Why does this group still exist?

The Taliban said they didn't harbor terrorism... they were still responsible.

Israel claims they don't support terrorism.... they still harbor it (both this, and their own military).

Bush himself said he will make *no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them*.

The US has an obligation, to Israeli and Palestinian civilians, and adequate reason to enter and deal with this.

Give it 12-18 months of US rule, and we will clean it up. Regime changes, and all. That will be the end of it.

THAT would help fight terrorism world wide.

Nice hyperbole, but no.

Because in a democracy with free speech, you tolerate the speech and existence of groups you don't like. No matter how alarmist - and narrow-minded - it appears, everything in the Kahane-derived groups' statement is constitutionally protected free speech.

If your contentions were truthful about destroying organizations as a duty of America, there would be no KKK, no Council of Conservative Citizens, no Aryan Nation, Aryan Brotherhood, no Nation of Islam, no World Church of the Creator, no Movimieto Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, American Nazi Party, and so on-

And those are just ones in America.


Despite my misgivings, I have no problem with any group of white supremacists holding a peaceful rally to express their views.

It's part of the price we pay for our freedom.

But it's also a good idea to not waste valuable energy railing against a relatively small group of hate-mongers who always pop up to take advantage of publicity designed to make some believe their numbers are larger than they actually are.

You're free to ignore them, too.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Nice hyperbole, but no.

Because in a democracy with free speech, you tolerate the speech and existence of groups you don't like. No matter how alarmist - and narrow-minded - it appears, everything in the Kahane-derived groups' statement is constitutionally protected free speech.

If your contentions were truthful about destroying organizations as a duty of America, there would be no KKK, no Council of Conservative Citizens, no Aryan Nation, Aryan Brotherhood, no Nation of Islam, no World Church of the Creator, no Movimieto Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, American Nazi Party, and so on-

And those are just ones in America.


Despite my misgivings, I have no problem with any group of white supremacists holding a peaceful rally to express their views.

It's part of the price we pay for our freedom.

But it's also a good idea to not waste valuable energy railing against a relatively small group of hate-mongers who always pop up to take advantage of publicity designed to make some believe their numbers are larger than they actually are.

You're free to ignore them, too.

There's a difference between groups that talk.

And groups that use violence, and terror.

The first is clearly covered by the constitution.

The second is *not* covered by the United States Constitution. Nor is it covered by any western-world democracy.

We are talking about a group that has used violence and terror. A group that has used, and has threatened.

Not a group that gives speaches and holds protests. But a terrorist group.

There's a difference.

Hate literature is funny. It's covered by the constitution. It's BS, and it's pretty humorous to read "The jews own the media", "The Puerto Ricans are taking over the US"... whatever BS they throw.

It becomes a terror group when they use organized violence or threats of violence on their victims.

Something this group has a history of. Hence it's qualification as a terror group.

And under the Bush doctorine. It must be dealt with for the good of mankind.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There's a difference between groups that talk.

And groups that use violence, and terror.

The first is clearly covered by the constitution.

The second is *not* covered by the United States Constitution. Nor is it covered by any western-world democracy.

We are talking about a group that has used violence and terror. A group that has used, and has threatened.

Not a group that gives speaches and holds protests. But a terrorist group.

There's a difference.

Hate literature is funny. It's covered by the constitution. It's BS, and it's pretty humorous to read "The jews own the media", "The Puerto Ricans are taking over the US"... whatever BS they throw.

It becomes a terror group when they use organized violence or threats of violence on their victims.

Something this group has a history of. Hence it's qualification as a terror group.

And under the Bush doctorine. It must be dealt with for the good of mankind.

Actually, no, the Bush doctrine is one of rewarding terrorists with a country by 2005, provided they cease terror.

All of Kach/Kahane Chai/et al's actions have gone punished by Israeli courts.

The websites now listed on the FTO's site are simply speech, not actions, however distasteful they might be.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Fatah, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, PLO, et al, have gone unpunished and remain active terrorists.

But go ahead, crow your glee at anything you can use against Israel, nevermind that Israel already took care of it as early as 1985, and continues to use it's courts correctly to punish extreme actions.

[macvillage.net]

Terrorism is still a danger. Until it removed, it's a danger.

Now if Israel removed them from society, either bombing, bulldozing, or incarcerating for life all involved... that's a different story.

Israel instead does exactly what Arafat did. Call off the dogs for a few, and leave them ready to go. Hamas went 3 weeks silent. These guys did a bit longer.

Israel said themselves. Silence doesn't make the danger go away. They are still a danger to the peace process, and civilians. Hence terororists.