• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why the Jews are afraid in Europe

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...synagogue-torching-is-act-to-criticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

There's not much to the article. However the act of attempted arson is the same thing no matter what the persons were thinking and the reasons for not sentencing them seemed more to do with semantics than justice.
 
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...synagogue-torching-is-act-to-criticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

There's not much to the article. However the act of attempted arson is the same thing no matter what the persons were thinking and the reasons for not sentencing them seemed more to do with semantics than justice.
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB
 
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...synagogue-torching-is-act-to-criticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????
The difference between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic has to be in the motive of the arsonists' act. The article doesn't provide the level of detail that could justify you in making a claim of antisemitic motive. I would agree that trying to torch a synagogue suggests antisemitism rather than a protest against the state of Israel but the judgement has to be made on the basis of judiciary principles not on the basis of a poll of public opinion. As it happens, the article does say that the court see the act as "a justified expression of criticism of Israel", which seems to rule out a charge for antisemitic act. The court may well be wrong in that but again you would need details that are not in the article to be able argue that.

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.
Again the article doesn't provide the details necessary to assert that the absence of jail time was justified by the incompetence of the arsonists. If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what German law requires in such cases -- i.e. due process.
EB
 
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...synagogue-torching-is-act-to-criticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

The arsonists (terrorists really) are Palestinian Muslims. And for some reason Muslims must be treated with kid gloves (they don't even get deported) in Europe, no matter what kind of crime they commit.

even murder ?
 
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...synagogue-torching-is-act-to-criticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

The arsonists (terrorists really) are Palestinian Muslims. And for some reason Muslims must be treated with kid gloves (they don't even get deported) in Europe, no matter what kind of crime they commit.
Fascinating how long you can be riding that hobby horse of nothing but hot air
 
even murder ?
Rape and attempted murder at least. There was an Iraqi Islamist in Germany who tried to assassinate Iraqi prime minister. He served a few years and then was released, no deportation. A bit later, he stabbed a police woman in Berlin and almost killed her before getting shot and killed.

- - - Updated - - -

Fascinating how long you can be riding that hobby horse of nothing but hot air
A bunch of Islamic terrorists in Europe try to torch a synagogue and get no jail time. It's not riding any hobby horses, it's pointing out what should be obvious. But I am sure you and Dr. Z will try to tell us how none of this has anything to do with Islam and how you welcome your new Islamic overlords. :rolleyes:
 
Rape and attempted murder at least. There was an Iraqi Islamist in Germany who tried to assassinate Iraqi prime minister. He served a few years and then was released, no deportation. A bit later, he stabbed a police woman in Berlin and almost killed her before getting shot and killed.

- - - Updated - - -

Fascinating how long you can be riding that hobby horse of nothing but hot air
A bunch of Islamic terrorists in Europe try to torch a synagogue and get no jail time. It's not riding any hobby horses, it's pointing out what should be obvious. But I am sure you and Dr. Z will try to tell us how none of this has anything to do with Islam and how you welcome your new Islamic overlords. :rolleyes:
So from one single case,which you misinterpret, of a handful peopke, you generalize over all european muslims?
...
 
There's not much to the article. However the act of attempted arson is the same thing no matter what the persons were thinking and the reasons for not sentencing them seemed more to do with semantics than justice.
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?
 
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?
If this is found to be some sort of protest against the gov't of Israel, then it is not necessarily an anti-semitic act.

But I think people who throw Molotov cocktails as an act of protest should perform some sort of restitution/community service and/or jail time depending on the severity of the effects.
 
The difference between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic has to be in the motive of the arsonists' act. The article doesn't provide the level of detail that could justify you in making a claim of antisemitic motive. I would agree that trying to torch a synagogue suggests antisemitism rather than a protest against the state of Israel but the judgement has to be made on the basis of judiciary principles not on the basis of a poll of public opinion.

I'd argue that their true motives are irrelevant. Objectively, the sole connection between the synagogue and Israel is via their shared connection to Judaism. Thus, even if their intent was to indirectly "attack" Israel, they did so by directly targeting Jews in general as a proxy for Israel. That is antisemitic and a hate-crime, just as beating up a random black person because you hate Obama is racist and a hate-crime. Plus, if their goal was to impact political policy, then it was also an act of terrorism.

As for the "justified expression" part, we can only hope that the court said no such thing, since the court deciding what acts of political violence that could kill people are "justified" is itself terrifying.
 
There's not much to the article. However the act of attempted arson is the same thing no matter what the persons were thinking and the reasons for not sentencing them seemed more to do with semantics than justice.
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

In the UK (unless EU Law superseded it) it is quite straightforward under the following

In the UK it’s a no brainer. The men made and used two bombs and intended to cause a fire by nature of the fact it was ignited when thrown.

Made the bomb: It illegal to make or possess an incendiary Fire Arm Act 1968
1. Possessing a bomb making manual carried a 3 ½ year jail sentence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-for-42-months-over-bomb-making-manual.html
2. Possessing a bomb– Firearms Act 1968 (as inserted by section 287 Criminal Justice Act 2003)
Mandatory Five year jail sentence
3. Throwing a firebomb. An indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six and a half years jail sentence per a report in .
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/03/man-jailed-firebomb-attacks-police.

In the Sentences are done on a case by case basis taking into account any differences in circumstances.

The politics doesn't matter in the UK and it should not. If someone throws a fire bomb at a building, he throws a fire bomb at a building.

So according to the German court (based on the news report) its less of an offence if the bomb thrower says he is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist its less of an offence. I was not aware that Germany is not at war with the state of Israel.
.
 
How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?
If this is found to be some sort of protest against the gov't of Israel, then it is not necessarily an anti-semitic act.

But I think people who throw Molotov cocktails as an act of protest should perform some sort of restitution/community service and/or jail time depending on the severity of the effects.

Did you study Semantics?
 
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

It is almost funny; but now Jews are legally virtually fair game in Germany if this case is used as a precedent.
I'm sure these two criminals, sorry political protesters are laughing about it with others who are thinking of this.
 
If this is found to be some sort of protest against the gov't of Israel, then it is not necessarily an anti-semitic act.

But I think people who throw Molotov cocktails as an act of protest should perform some sort of restitution/community service and/or jail time depending on the severity of the effects.

Did you study Semantics?
It is called thinking - you should try it some time.
 
If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

The point is it does not matter, as the crime is just as bad whatever justifications are used. My point is that even if the person was not antisemitic the severity of the crime based on the actions is identical.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you study Semantics?
It is called thinking - you should try it some time.

Throwing a bomb at someone is throwing a bomb at someone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom