Synagogue Shooting in Pittsburgh

[Timsup2nothin]

Probably shouldn't even bother. There are so many examples of the right politicising tragedies like this that in order to deny it you need to be either; so far right that you think Mussolini was a commie, or; such a partisan hack/ideologue you can't admit your side has ever done wrong. Maybe both. Unless Mouthwash lives under a rock in Rupert Murdoch's garden, he can't possibly have failed to notice this.

Looks like both. Rupert Murdoch should be relieved.

 

[Traitorfish]

The first link shows it clearly. Apparently nothing short of shoving it right in your face will do:

Here is an Atlantic staff writer calling for the 'shunning' of pro-Trump Jews: "Any strategy for enhancing the security of American Jewry should involve shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome. They have placed their community in danger."

No, I saw that. But it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

 

[HoloDoc]

Looks like both. Rupert Murdoch should be relieved.

Murdoch would swing wildly to the left if he had such a squatter.

I especially like Mouthwash's argument that the best example of the right politicising this tragedy was an example of the right politicising this tragedy, which somehow proved his argument that the right didn't politicise this tragedy..? WTH?

 

[Mouthwash]

No, I saw that. But it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

What do you imagine it is *really* trying to say, then?

 

[bernie14]

Meteor shower? Alien invasion? Rise of Cthulhu?

Why aren't we prepared for those things?

SPACE FORCE!!!!

 

[Traitorfish]

What do you imagine it is *really* trying to say, then?

I don't know what you mean by "really". The meaning is pretty surface level: the speaker proposes that this act of anti-Semitic has been made possible by an atmosphere of brought about by the election of Donal Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, and implores Republican-voting American Jews to consider whether this is worth Trump's avowedly pro-Israeli foreign policy. I don't know if this is the most tasteful response to this incident, but the writer is herself Jewish-American, so it doesn't seem like the place of a Scottish gentile to comment.

And I say that noting that the author of the tweet you cited is named "McDonald".

 

[Cutlass]

SPACE FORCE!!!!

Mel Brooks?

 

[bernie14]

Mel Brooks?

Yeah, actually, i just posted the first search on youtube....now that i saw the entire clip, dont know if the star wars stuff is edited in.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, actually, i just posted the first search on youtube....now that i saw the entire clip, dont know if the star wars stuff is edited in.

I think it is. I semi-recall the Jews in Space thing. But the Star Wars part would have been copywrite infringement.

 

[sophie]

It’s from Spaceballs, Mel Brooks’s spoof of Star Wars

 

[Cutlass]

Mel Brooks is a Great Person. Should be in the Civ4 list.

 

[Ajidica]

It’s from Spaceballs, Mel Brooks’s spoof of Star Wars

Actually, the Jews in Space scene is from History of the World not Spaceballs.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't know what you mean by "really". The meaning is pretty surface level: the speaker proposes that this act of anti-Semitic has been made possible by an atmosphere of brought about by the election of Donal Trump to the presidency of the United States of America, and implores Republican-voting American Jews to consider whether this is worth Trump's avowedly pro-Israeli foreign policy.

That's not that different from what I said? Some Jews wanted the embassy moved, this resulted in them voting Trump, and Trump's 'rhetoric' caused this guy to shoot up a synagogue. It's still laying responsibility on the Jews who failed to take the party line.

I don't know if this is the most tasteful response to this incident,

We don't have to know what the most tasteful response would be to know that this is probably the least.

but the writer is herself Jewish-American, so it doesn't seem like the place of a Scottish gentile to comment.

Ironically enough, she agrees. And I might too, if that would also apply to the Jewish state.

EDIT: Almost forgot - this particular Jewess went out drinking with Richard Spencer (for 'journalistic' purposes, but I wonder if that's really enough to excuse this):

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ironically enough, she agrees. And I might as well, if that would apply to the Jewish state.

Thing is that a position of "only Jews are entitled to an opinion about the actions of a Jewish state," which seems to be what you are suggesting there, is untenable.

 

[Mouthwash]

Thing is that a position of "only Jews are entitled to an opinion about the actions of a Jewish state," which seems to be what you are suggesting there, is untenable.

How is it different from the actions of American Jewish voters? Why should goyim be barred from one thing but not the other?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How is it different from the actions of American Jewish voters? Why should goyim be barred from one thing but not the other?

Because a state has to exist among states. What you seem to be looking for is "well, yes, they are a rogue that attacks neighbors and would in any other case be sanctioned into collapse, but since they are a Jewish state no other state has any right to interfere with their actions." I hope you never find that.

 

[Mouthwash]

Because a state has to exist among states.

Jews exist among their fellow citizens. Why should they be exempt from commentary?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Jews exist among their fellow citizens. Why should they be exempt from commentary?

Beats me, and I can't seem to find where I said I gave a good rip. My comment was regarding a Jewish state, not a Jewish citizen.

 

[Mouthwash]

Beats me, and I can't seem to find where I said I gave a good rip. My comment was regarding a Jewish state, not a Jewish citizen.

My comment about a Jewish state was in reply to the comment telling all Gentiles to shut up about the massacre. Maybe you should figure that sort of thing out before jumping in, next time?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not that different from what I said? Some Jews wanted the embassy moved, this resulted in them voting Trump, and Trump's 'rhetoric' caused this guy to shoot up a synagogue. It's still laying responsibility on the Jews who failed to take the party line.

I don't think anyone believes that Jewish Republicans are specifically responsible for Trump's election. Given the geographic distribution of American Jews, they're unlikely to be in a position to impact presidential elections one way or the other. The obvious interpretation- if we're reading what is actually written, rather than going out of way to read her words in deliberate bad faith- it's a call for introspection rather than an accusation of culpability. Fundamentally, it's a plea for unity among American Jews, contextualised in an awareness that this unity is incompatible with support of a white nationalist demagogue, however many Jerusalem's worth of greater goods Jewish Republicans might believe they are gaining from this support.

If there's something controversial in this, it's not some obtuse accusation of culpability for the shooting, but rather the claim that the shooting challenges Jewish conservatives to decide whether their ultimate loyalties lie with Israel or Jewry, something which many of them had previously assumed to one and the same.

Ironically enough, she agrees. And I might too, if that would also apply to the Jewish state.

I don't think that two people agreeing on something actually constitutes an example of irony.