Mumbai: tragedy and farce

November 30, 2008 at 9:51 pm (anti-semitism, Champagne Charlie, fascism, hell, insanity, sectarianism)

We must never forget that the vast majority of the 200 or so victims of the Mumbai attacks were working class Indians. That alone means that this filthy act must be condemned by the real Left before there is any attempt to “understand” or “contextualise”. Which is why I don’t like the balance of the pro-Islamist SWP’er Lenny Seymour’s comments, accurate as they may be, because they seem to have been written with a willful agenda of ignoring the real (ie: Islamist / nihilist) “context” of these fascist attacks:

“Eight years of repression, scapegoating, and some of the worst anti-Muslim violence for years, might have radicalised layers…However, the Indian state has too much of an interest in demonising all Islamist as a means towards repressing Muslims in general…”

So the SWP’er Seymour’s response to an Islamist act of mass-murder against mainly working class victims is…to warn against “demonising all Islamist groups”… just as, of course, it could be argued that not all British far-right groups are the same. The rank and file membership of the BNP, for instance, is much more “understandable” than the cadre of Column 88…

Happily, many (and, I hope, most) Muslims in the UK are more forthright in their condemnation, than Seymour and the SWP. Here’s a letter from yesterday’s Graun that, I hope and believe, is representative of the thinking of most British Muslims:

“We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives in Mumbai. Nothing can justify the slaughter and kidnapping of civilians. However, it is erroneous to portray all Muslims as terrorists. This will give jihadists the chance to set off a clash between the west and the Muslim world at a time of uncertainty. The silent majority of Muslims condemn such abominable attacks. The challenges ahead are daunting. It is therefore time to show our disapproval to terrorists’ twistsd mindset by standing together to extinguish the flames of global terrorism.

 Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob London.”

Another grotesque aspect of this outrage is that whilst Jews appear to have been a special target, with the Israelis in the Jewish Centre apparently subjected to “maximum torture” before being killed, the usual progromist mob of nutters, anti-semites and conspiracy-theorists are -farcically but all too predictably – blaming Israel and Mossad…

Chris Hitchens has an interesting and relevant article in the TLS, written before the Islamo-fascists (why do liberals object to that term?) attacked Mumbai, but highly pertinent.

H/t: (for the anti-semitic conspiracy theory stuff): Terry Glavin

PS: Seymour is just ignorant, miseducated and doesn’t realise what a racist he is…

103 Comments

  1. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Hm, if you look at the actual politics of the Jewish centre that was attacked by Islamist fanatics, you will discover that peace-loving people they ain’t. This is the politics of the Chabad-Lubavitch:

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/lubavitch/lubavitch68.html

    They are the kind of nutjobs responsible for similar atrocities on the West Bank. All other things being equal, since they were just as crazed as the Islamic fanatics who killed them, it is no more of a loss that these fanatics died than that the terrorists also died. Unfortunately those latter bastards also killed a load of innocent people in the process, but picking on this particular Jewish group as somehow innocent victims of anti-semitism is crackers, or displays softness on their clerical fascism.

  2. KB Player said,

    So, WWW, if these Jews had been mildly Orthodox or Reformist, not a hair of their heads would have been touched?

    These jihadists are supposed to have done quite a bit of research on Mumbai before they went on their killing spree. I suppose they must have made a thorough investigation of the particular doctrines of this particular Jewish Centre before torturing and murdering the people there.

  3. Django said,

    Hm, you really are a murderous, anti-Semitic little cunt aren’t you Wally?

  4. charliethechulo said,

    Wally: finally exposed for what he is – by himself!

  5. Django said,

    Oh and Wally, I believe a young woman was amongst the Jews killed there. Bet you really got your rocks off on that.

  6. modernityblog said,

    that says it all

    when some at Lenin’s Tomb and others (such as Wally Wibblywellies) try to contextualize the murder of Jews, for simply being Jews, then you know what a miserable state the political scene in is.

    the image that stuck in my mind, was the Mumbai railway station as an old women/man were helped away with baggage, blood splattered across the floor, clothes thrown about

    bearing in mind that such Railway stations are often used by the homeless as shelters, so it was also an attack on the poorest in Mumbai.

  7. John A said,

    “Islamo-fascists (why do liberals object to that term?)”

    Oh, I don’t know. It fits nicely in with the way we characterise other religions, doesn’t it? Just consider how you would treat a serious scholar (or half-serious blogger) who went around using the term “Judeo-fascist” to describe a homophobic, misogynistic, racist and violent Jewish group.

  8. charliethechulo said,

    John: I’d agree with (or, at least, wouldn’t have a big falling-out with) anyone who described a violent , racist Jewish group as “fascist”. But the Israeli state, for all its many faults, is most certainly not “fascist”, and is – half-heartedly – trying to deal with the extreme right, and evict illegal settlers from Palestinian land.

  9. Jim Denham said,

  10. John A said,

    I agree wholeheartedly that the Israeli state is not fascist. The reason I don’t use Islamofascism is for the same reason that I wouldn’t use Judeofascism: it doesn’t seem to me to be the same phenomenon and there is a certain risk of tainting others by association. There may be one group of two men and their dog who live in Israel, are Jewish and fit this definition of fascist, but when people begin talking about Israeli Judeofascism, I think it implicates more than it clarifies.

  11. modernityblog said,

    I think the term “Islamofascism” is very clumsy and should be avoided.

  12. John Meredith said,

    “Just consider how you would treat a serious scholar (or half-serious blogger) who went around using the term “Judeo-fascist” to describe a homophobic, misogynistic, racist and violent Jewish group.”

    If it was a political group with specific, fascistic, political aims, what would the objection be?

  13. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “John: I’d agree with (or, at least, wouldn’t have a big falling-out with) anyone who described a violent , racist Jewish group as “fascist”.

    Except for the one actually being discussed here, of course. Clue: Baruch Goldstein was a Chabad Lubavitcher. So when are you going to take your AK-47 into your local mosque, and massacre the worshippers like Goldstein did, Charlie boy? Or is that question too offensive to you.

    If some ultra-Islamic lunatic shot up the BNP, no doubt Charlie-boy would be complaining that they were guilty of ‘anti-white racism’ for doing so. That’s the implication behind the foul-mouthed responses to my posting. Only a hair’s breath from the Ann Coulter type response.

    And my guess is the terrorists did plenty of research before their attacks, and knew exactly who they were attacking and what they stood for. Since they also killed indiscriminately, I guess they didn’t really care that much who they killed – though it appears they particularly targetted those with British and US passports – both for death and as hostages.

    Which displays an anti-Western mindset, though hardly a racist one. Its not about whether or not this is indefensible (obviously it is to be condemned – that’s ABC!), but rather about analysising the motives for it. Evidently you are not capable of that. You sound just like Mad Mel.

    If they knew the Lubavitchers were a ultra-militarist pro-Western/Israeli racist settler hardline group, that would be motive enough to attack them and nothing to do with alleged ‘anti-semitism’. You people see anti-semitism where there is no actual evidence of it. Perhaps you put the killings of Brits and Americans down to ‘racism’ also? Or if not, why not?

  14. Django said,

    Stop digging, you cringing little subhuman.

  15. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “subhuman”

    Django is evidently a Nazi, he’s even picked up the lingo now.

  16. Django said,

    Yes Wally, I ‘use the language’ while you gloat over the death of a Jewish girl.

    Like I said, subhuman.

  17. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Like I said, Nazi.

  18. Django said,

    Wally, I take it that since you welcome and support these murders, you would have got involved yourself given the chance.

    Or do you just cheer from the sidelines? Would you go ‘hands on’? I can’t wait to hear you answer. Don’t hold back.

  19. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “Wally, I take it that since you welcome and support these murders, you would have got involved yourself given the chance. “

  20. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Second attempt at posting.

    “Wally, I take it that since you welcome and support these murders, you would have got involved yourself given the chance.”

    Django evidently can’t read this sentence.

    “Its not about whether or not this is indefensible (obviously it is to be condemned – that’s ABC!), but rather about analysising the motives for it.”

    Nor can he read my original post where I called the terrorists bastards and said that their own deaths were no loss either. He could better accuse me of gloating over the deaths of the terrorists!

    But then there’s no liar like a racist liar.

    Django doesn’t want to read what anyone else can read, simply because he sympathises with the Lubavitchers and their racist politics. Thus calling me ‘subhuman’ is just a surrogate for saying what he really thinks about the victims of the Lubavitchers. And there are many.

  21. Django said,

    Strange Wally, I could have sworn you said that ‘it is no more of a loss that these fanatics died than that the terrorists’. Given that the terrorists were psychopaths armed with scores of grenades, automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition, while the victim I am referring to was an unarmed young woman kneeling in front of them in a classroom, I think that it is fair to assume you are either mentally ill or deeply amoral.

    I also think you’ll find that several other posters found you reprehensible and disturbing. More Nazis obviously.

  22. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    And so Django admits that I did say that the deaths of the terrorists were no loss.

    And of course, no female can possibly be a member of a fascist group, can she?

    If she is a member of a killer clerical-fascist group, then she is no better than the terrorists.

    It is evidently Django who is a defender of fascists. Or are the Lubavitchers not an armed fascistic terrorist group in their own right? Many Israelis would regard them as fascistic terrorists.

    Keep digging. The more you jump to their defence, the more you expose what you really are.

  23. Django said,

    Yes Wally, that’s right. By objecting to the execution of an unarmed young woman I’m ‘jumping to their defense’.

  24. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    By accusing anyone who doubts their complete innocence of anti-semitism, you are indeed ‘jumping to their defence’.

  25. modernityblog said,

    I am almost speechless reading that drivel from “Wally Wibblywellies”.

    I had hoped only to see such filth on Extreme Right-wing web sites, but now “Wally Wibblywellies” feels bold enough to articulate that disgusting apology for the murder of Jews in the open.

    Jim/Volty,

    you should seriously consider if you want to “No Platform” Wally Wibblywellies, there are limits and excusing the cold blooded and deliberate murder of Jews is one of them

  26. Django said,

    Careful modernity. Wally might unleash his profound intellect and rapier wit on you. I feel like I’ve been savaged by the bastard offspring of Michael Ignatiev and Lionel Shriver.

  27. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Yeah right. This from Modernity, the corrupt liar who manufactures accusations of Holocaust Denial out of thin air. Shit for brains racist moron, I would be proud to be no-platformed by a site inhabited by clerical-fascist sympathisers like Django with their Nazi rhetoric about how certain types of people are ‘subhuman’.

  28. Django said,

    Oh dear. That was a disappointment.

    Honestly modernity, he can do better than this. He’ll be along again shortly, so give him another chance.

  29. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Ah, now the Nazi rhetorical flourishes have dried up, Django is playing psueds corner.

  30. Django said,

    He’s spent.

  31. chjh said,

    Wasn’t it John Major who argued that we should “understand a little less, and condemn a little more”? Nice to see his legacy lives on.

  32. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    What profundity, Django. I’m flabbergasted.

  33. Django said,

    Apologies, he’s back.

  34. modernityblog said,

    chjh,

    perhaps you’d like to suggest to Richard Seymour that only a few days after the killing of Jews in Mumbai, for merely being Jews, how his latest post is a tad insensitive?

    http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/11/antisemitism-of-new-antisemitism.html

  35. Don’t even go there « Max Dunbar said,

    [...] even go there By maxdunbar For me the Mumbai atrocities were so horrific that they define comment. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss [...]

  36. Jim Denham said,

    Ignore the anti-semitic shite. Here’s something to cleanse the intellect:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2205710/

  37. charliethechulo said,

    Let the record (on here) show: wally thinks orthodox Jews deserve to die. End of story. We now know what we’re dealing wih.

  38. modernityblog said,

    Charlie,

    Wally Wibblywellies non too fussy either way, as you’ll notice he avoided answering KB’s question:

    “So, WWW, if these Jews had been mildly Orthodox or Reformist, not a hair of their heads would have been touched?”

    whilst I favour a libertarian comments policy, I draw the line at Wally Wibblywellies’ condoning the murder of Jews

    such people can’t contribute to any intelligent political debate and in my view should be No Platformed, still it is your blog not mine, you decide

  39. Jim Denham said,

  40. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “wally thinks orthodox Jews deserve to die.”

    More feeble lies. Many orthodox Jews are principled opponents of Zionism.

    Considering that the orthodox Jewish trend Neturei Karta have been denounced as ‘ultra-reactionary’ on this site, and I have defended them, it is a bit strange to accuse me of having anything against Orthodox Jews!! Neturei Karta have never produced a killer like Baruch Goldstein, and nor are they likely to. They are, however, quite likely to be murdered by people like the Lubavitchers.

    I do not shed tears for the death of members of a clerical fascist sect that bears comparison with the Croatian Ustashe, that spawned Baruch Goldstein.

    Your lies don’t even make elementary logical sense. Except that you seem inordinately fond of clercial fascists.

  41. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Actually, Charlie the Chulo’s comment, equating the Chabad Lubavtichers with ‘Orthodox Jews’ really is anti-semitic.

    Its rather like equating ordinary Catholics with the Ustashe, or ordinary Muslims with Al Qaeda. A disgusting insult against many peaceable orthodox Jews, to be compared with the hate filled cult that spawned Baruch Goldstein.

  42. Lurker said,

    Wally wrote:

    Many orthodox Jews are principled opponents of Zionism.

    That’s true, the Satmar being the most well known. But unlike Neturei Karta, they don’t make excuses for antisemites or attend Holocaust denial conferences.

  43. modernityblog said,

    this is a very old trick, to be found in any Klan or White power forum

    this tactic is often used by David Duke or some of his minions to somehow suggest because a very very small minority of religious Jews are against the establishment of the State of Israel, at the moment, for religious reasons, that their own hatred of Israel is on a par with that.

    which it isn’t

    the Wally Wibblywellies of the world justify and enjoy the murder of Jews, as much as the neo-Nazis on Stormfront do

    whereas Religious Jews do not.

    a not inconsiderable difference

  44. Shuggy said,

    They are the kind of nutjobs responsible for similar atrocities on the West Bank

    I think ‘kind of’ is the operative phrase here because the despicable Wally Wibblywellies has not furnished us with any evidence that those Jews tortured and murdered in Bombay were actually responsible for anything happening in the West Bank. It seems implausible, for example, that one of the victims – Norma Schwartzblatt-Rabinowitz – could have had anything to do with ‘similar atrocities on the West Bank’ because she was Mexican and hadn’t actually settled in Israel yet. Apparently the morticians involved in this case – people by definition accustomed to the dead – were horrified at the condition of the corpses in this case. That anyone claiming to be a reasonable human being, never mind belonging to the humanitarian left, can not only lost the capacity to be revolted by these heinous crimes but actually apologise for them is beyond comprehension.

  45. KB Player said,

    “actually apologise for ”

    I think the phrase I would use would be “rejoice in”. It doesn’t surprise me. You get a more genteel version of that kind of thing in the Guardian.

    “such people can’t contribute to any intelligent political debate and in my view should be No Platformed, still it is your blog not mine, you decide”

    I’m for seeing the shit even if it turns my stomach. It indicates there’s a sewer banking up somewhere.

  46. Red Maria said,

    The poor two year old, Moshe Holtzberg, who was orphaned by the Mumbai atrocities had never done anything to anybody. His parents were gunned down in front of him and he was found by his nanny sobbing piteously by their bodies. It was a diabolical crime made all the more unforgiveable for inflicting terrible suffering on a completely innocent infant.

  47. modernityblog said,

    KB player,

    right on, I am shocked that people like Wally Wibblywellies are just so blasé about their repugnant views, which wouldn’t go amiss on a BNP forum

    it does say something about the extent of political decline in Britain when that happens.

    I dread to think about resurgence of the Far Right and how they’ll hoover up supporters like Wally Wibblywellies in a tick.

  48. Alan Laurence said,

    WWW – do you think its reasonable for, lets say, the Madrid branch of the British Legion to be blown up? After all – its members faught in imperialist wars?
    Or perhaps for the San Fransisco branch of the Tory or Labour Party to be bombed – after all they are probably pro-Iraq war activists?
    Or how about the UK cabinet – after all, they directly authorised the invasion of Iraq.

  49. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Very amusing, the pro-Lubavitcher propaganda on this forum. Of course, I made it quite clear that I condemned the entire Mumbai business from start to finish anyway.

    But singling out the Lubavitcher scumbags as victims of racism is itself racist filth. These terrorists killed the civilian population indiscriminately, they didn’t care what religion or ethnic group they were killing. That is foul nihilism, but hardly ‘racism’. What makes these lot so special? Only the sympathy of those here for their atrocities against Arabs and Muslims, that’s what!

    “their repugnant views, which wouldn’t go amiss on a BNP forum”

    Actually, the views of the Chabad Lubavitchers are quite similar to those of the BNP. Probably the BNP would consider them tactically adventurist, however: they generally don’t consider it wise (at this point) for their people to enter mosques with AK-47s and massacre the worshippers present.

    [someone responding to my observation that many orthodox Jews are principled opponents of zionism] “That’s true, the Satmar being the most well known. But unlike Neturei Karta, they don’t make excuses for antisemites or attend Holocaust denial conferences.”

    More to the point is that neither are remotely likely to generate a monster like Baruch Goldstein.

    Incidentally, there are reckoned to have been around 8 terrorists involved in the atrocity in Mumbai, killing around 188 people. That’s around 23 a piece. Baruch Goldstein had a somewhat higher kill-rate than that: he killed 29 in the Hebron Mosque single-handedly. Many of his admirers and comrades to this day are involved in vile harassment, ethnic cleansing and frequently worse crimes, including murder, against the Arab population of Hebron. And the threat, indeed the certainty, remains of more similar atrocities from these people.

    The indulgence shown towards clerical fascism on this blog is quite amazing.

  50. Sue R said,

    One of teh Jewish men killed at the Jewish Centre was a Satmar Jew. His family refused to allow him a state funeral or to have the Israeli flag draped on his coffin. Does Mr Wobblywilly think that the terrorists distinguished between Jews and if they did not, should they have done?

  51. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “Norma Schwartzblatt-Rabinowitz – could have had anything to do with ’similar atrocities on the West Bank’ because she was Mexican and hadn’t actually settled in Israel yet.”

    Here’s another good one. Someone travels half-way round the world to join a rabid group of racist lunatics whose best known figure committed a horrendous massacre in a Mosque, and you’re telling me they’re innocent, pure as the driven snow.

    Don’t insult people’s intelligence. If she wasn’t a racist lunatic, she wouldn’t have travelled so far to join a group infamous for being racist lunatics. Oh, and by the way, plenty of kids have been orphaned and maimed by these kind of people, but we don’t see this kind of solicitousness on their behalf, do we?

  52. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Actually, it looks very much as though the terrorists did not distinguish very much at all, and killed pretty much indiscriminately. Complete nihiilism.

  53. SP said,

    But back to comment no.1

    Shame they were not “good jews” eh Wally?

  54. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    No mention of ‘good Jews’ in #1. Still, its revealing you use that phrase, isn’t it?

  55. SP said,

    Simple point . “Good jew – bad jew” is a central theme of modern, western, anti-semitic discourse. (This is something of which I know you are aware, because of previous threads here. It is also clear that any serious consideration of this, in the context of your own perverse postings is non existant – whilst I guess that if you were accused of “islamophobia”, racism or, perhaps even sexism you might pause for a moments thought).

    Had the Jewish centre victims been “good jews” i.e. vocally anti zionist, you probably would never have even dipped your toe into this thread let alone arrived at your (deeply inadequate) conclusion at post 51.

    Those victims, no more or less important than any of the others, were murdered by Jew haters for nothing more that being Jews. You should think long and hard as to why you made the first comment on this thread with what is little more than an apologia for racist, terrorist murder.

  56. SP said,

    PS

    and what Shuggy said.

  57. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Ah, the usual mindfucking guilt-tripping Zionist crap. Your obviously a clone of Alan Lawrence, or perhaps Modernity who conjures up allegations of Holocaust Denial out of thin air.

    The only use of the term ‘good and bad Jews’ comes from you. Ergo, its you who is obsessed with that concept, not me. I judge people by what they do and stand for, not by their ethnic origin or which world religion they believe in. Evidently you do the opposite.

    Presumably, the only victims of racism in the Mumbai atrocity were the Lubavitcher rabbi and his cohorts. All the rest of the victims of the atrocity don’t get this honorific. But then, I doubt the other victims of the atrocity were distinguished by membership of a group known for similar atrocities as the terrorists.

    Your mind-fucking guilt-tripping crap is itself deeply racist.

  58. SP said,

    Go re-read the first comment here, by you, which is the reason I have, belatedly, commented. Look at the context of your use of the word “innocent” for instance. Or the ridiculous, and unsustainable phrase “just as crazed as” to describe innocent victims you know nothing about ,who lived non-violently in a multi ethnic city.

    I am unapologetically “obsessed with” the common themes of modern anti-semitism and suggest again that you review what you say here with the same rigor I anticipate you would against any other allegation of racism.

    “All the rest of the victims of the atrocity don’t get this honorific”

    Er – you were the first on this thread and I am not the one who makes the “Innocent”, or not, differentiation. What I said at 54 was quite clear:

    “Those victims, no more or less important than any of the others, were murdered by Jew haters for nothing more that being Jews”

    You, not me, are “distinguishing” between the victims.

  59. Will said,

    Wally really hates the Jooz doesn’t he?

    Fucking hell Wally — were you molested by a rabbi as a child or something?

    What a fucking crank and crackpot.

    A good laff is got at his expense tho but.

  60. Red Maria said,

    WWW said: “Presumably, the only victims of racism in the Mumbai atrocity were the Lubavitcher rabbi and his cohorts. All the rest of the victims of the atrocity don’t get this honorific. But then, I doubt the other victims of the atrocity were distinguished by membership of a group known for similar atrocities as the terrorists.”

    What on earth are you talking about? A two year old – TWO YEAR OLD! – was orphaned when the Mumbai Jewish centre was targeted. His parents were slaughtered in front of him.

    Close your eyes and imagine the scene. The two year old infant is in a room with his panting, terrified mother when gunmen burst in and shoot her dead. He sees the lifeblood pumping from her wounds and his entire universe end, just like that.

    Please, please can you tell me what that two year old had done to anyone or what group he was a member of that he deserved ever to experience that horror because I just don’t see it.

  61. Will said,

    Mind you — I notice how the catholic falangist ‘Red’ Maria also separates the suffering of the child from the adult’s suffering in an attempt at qualitative relativism.

    Catholics — keep at arms length and preferably keep away from jews.

    Just saying like.

  62. Red Maria said,

    Mind you – I notice how the semi-literate ex-Millie tosser, Mentally “Will” falsly suggests that I have separated (perhaps he meant emphasised) anyone’s suffering over anyone else’s in a vain attempt at philosophical insight.

    Sectarian Rangers fanatics – keep well away from sniffing distance and preferably away from booze, bras and cutlery.

    Just saying like.

  63. Ed said,

    I suppose it is just conceivable that a group which fires indiscriminately into crowds of people specifically chose to target Chabad-Lubovitch Jews rather than some other group of Jews because they object to their specific ideology. Ideology doesn’t seem to have bothered them otherwise. But maybe, when it comes to Jews, they are more choosy who they massacre.

    I’m sorry WWW – what was your fucking point again?

  64. Sue R said,

    It’s like Everest. It was there. Those Jews were neatly tucked up in a convenient location and so they went there to a public building and shot them. But, let’s be clear, several hundred other people, non-Jews, were also methodically slaughtered by lads who thought they were playing real Tombaider. The surviving fellow turns out to be a fluent English speaker and a computer whizzkid. He knew what he was doing.

  65. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “I suppose it is just conceivable that a group which fires indiscriminately into crowds of people specifically chose to target Chabad-Lubovitch Jews rather than some other group of Jews because they object to their specific ideology.”

    Problem is, that it is this blog that singled out this group of Jews from all the other victims of this killing as being specifically victims of racism.

    The massacre was indicriminate, within limits: hotels and various other targets (including the Jewish centre) were selected that were perceived as broadly pro-Western and anti-Muslim, and within that framework, the killings were indiscriminate.

    This took place particularly in the context of the West’s embrace of anti-Muslim Hindu extremists, so recently in government in India, as allies in the ‘war against terror’. The Jewish centre’s profile as pro-Western and anti-Muslim might just have had something to do with its extremist anti-Muslim politics, and its support for massacres of Muslim peoples.

    To mention this, and note that this group of Jewish fundamentalist extremists may not be entirely innocent victims, is apparently ‘anti-semitic’. This only brings the real definition of anti-semitism into disrepute.

    “I am unapologetically “obsessed with” the common themes of modern anti-semitism and suggest again that you review what you say here with the same rigor I anticipate you would against any other allegation of racism.”

    Well, I am equally unapologetically about standing up to modern-day anti-Muslim bigotry and the manipulation of phoney accusations of anti-semitism to justify atrocities against Muslim peoples by the kind of people who write on blogs such as this. This atrocity was part of the blowback from much greater atrocities by the state of Israel and its Western allies. I reject your cynical misuse of ‘anti-semitism’ as a mind-fucking smear with contempt.

  66. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Willywanker;

    What’s with the obsession with the small number of Jews who were killed in Mumbai? Is it that you think the atrocities were a legitimate attack on that group, with the other victims (the vast majority) being “collateral damage”? Or are you just so myopically focussed on zionism as the source of all the world’s ills that the Indian citizens killed by the fanatics on that day simply don’t register on your radar?

    Your apparent determination not to criticise those who perpetuated the Mumbai attacks is rather weird at best, and a sign of some pretty unsavoury motivations at worst.

  67. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “What’s with the obsession with the small number of Jews who were killed in Mumbai?”

    I dont know, you tell me! Since the whole point of the main posting on this thread is to highlight them in order to accuse the left of racism, you tell me what the obsession is?

    I just pointed out the stupidity of that highlighting them as victims of racism, and that they were vicious racists themselves. Then the usual cretins weighed in. The obssession comes from you lot.

    “Your apparent determination not to criticise those who perpetuated the Mumbai attacks is rather weird at best”

    Since I called them ‘bastards’, ‘nihilists’, and their actions an ‘atrocity’ more than once in this thread, I suggest that you have lost the ability to read plain English. If you are so confident of what you say, why can’t you simply criticise me for what I said, not for inventions of others?

  68. voltairespriest said,

    Oh, so you did. Not lost the ability to read, it’s just that your contributions were putting me to sleep :P

    On the main point though, Jim’s post devotes only a tiny amount of text to mentioning the Jews killed in Mumbai. You then fly off the handle about what especially nasty Jews they were. So… do you think they were legitimate targets then?

  69. SP said,

    Sigh

    My comments here have related solely to your words, particularly comment No.1. I understand why you might wish to impute other motives but I have been careful to give you absolutely no grounds for that – I am only interested in what you wrote.

    Comment No.1 engages in blaming these “no more no less important” victims for the crime. More specifically it is implicit in this that they are not “innocent” and expressly that they are “just as crazed” as their killers and are consequently “no more of a loss..”.

    Unarguably in my view, this comment demonstrates a common anti-semitic theme. I have also suggested to you, to which you have not directly responded, that had these victims been avowed anti-zionist Jews you would never have made any comment at all on this post.

    This is not a “mind fuck” it is a political challenge to you to reconsider your own words against the charge that they, consciously or otherwise, replicate a common and pernicious anti-semitic theme. You respond with the equally common anti-semitic theme that such accusations are made in bad faith, “cynical misuse” being your description. If my accusations, including this new one, are “phoney” you should say why. Either respond to what I am saying or ignore me (or swear) but no more displacement activity or attempts at misdirection please.

    The fact that this exchange is illustrative of a wider argument on the “left” makes this doubly depressing.

  70. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “On the main point though, Jim’s post devotes only a tiny amount of text to mentioning the Jews killed in Mumbai. You then fly off the handle about what especially nasty Jews they were. So… do you think they were legitimate targets then?”

    A ‘tiny’ amount – but still a polemic against others on the left for alleged ‘racism’. Don’t pretend this is inconsequentia – its the main point. As for ‘legitimate targets’, those are your words and your invention, not related to anything I said. They are not compatible with the word ‘atrocity’, even from the point of view of elementary logic. But neither are they innocent victims of racism, as the original posting basically says.

  71. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “This is not a “mind fuck” it is a political challenge to you to reconsider your own words against the charge that they, consciously or otherwise, replicate a common and pernicious anti-semitic theme.”

    The charge is malicious, consciously cynical crap, and I dont’ ‘consider’ it to be anything other than contemptible. Obviously, to mention that this particular group of Jews was an extremist, killer group, is ‘anti-semitic’. This kind of non-logic actual devalues anti-semitism, and helps those who really do hate all Jews.

    “I have also suggested to you, to which you have not directly responded, that had these victims been avowed anti-zionist Jews you would never have made any comment at all on this post.”

    And if my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle. Actually, if they had not been co-thinkers of Baruch Goldstein or some comparable racist psycho-killer, I might not have commented. But then, arguably, they might not even have attracted the attention of those particular terrorists in the first place. Arguing about hypotheticals, as opposed to what concretely happened, only underlines that regarding the concrete facts, you have no case at all.

    The essence of the counter-attack by the Zionists posting here is that to mention that the Chabad Lubavitcher are extremists and killers is anti-semitic. But that is the truth about them. So to tell the truth about them is anti-semitic. Any genuine anti-semite would thank you for that gift to anti-semitism. I think that is an obscenity.

  72. voltairespriest said,

    I’m not putting words in your mouth, I asked you a question. Do you think they were legitimate targets (or “fair game” or whatever other formulation of words you may prefer)? It really shouldn’t be difficult to answer.

  73. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    I’ve already answered the question. Or doesn’t the word ‘atrocity’ mean anything to you? There are no ‘legitimate’ targets for an atrocity, so obviously the answer is no. No more than any other of the victims of the atrocity.

    It is your position that singles them out as victims of racism, which they weren’t – they were victims of an indiscriminate act of anti-Western terror, but not the victims of any kind of racist attack.

  74. voltairespriest said,

    See, now that wasn’t so hard was it?

  75. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    There is nothing in my answer to your question that contradicts anything I had previously written. The question was therefore utterly superfluous.

    More psueds’ corner.

  76. Ed said,

    “To mention this, and note that this group of Jewish fundamentalist extremists may not be entirely innocent victims, is apparently ‘anti-semitic’.”

    Well, in plain English, then, they were ‘not entirely innocent victims’.

    Either you are saying they were targeted because they are Jewish fundamentalist extremists, that is, their attackers made an ideological choice (jn which case my previous point stands, that when it comes to Jews, and apparently Jews alone, they make such a discrimination);

    Or you accept they were targeted not because they were ‘not entirely innocent’, but irrespective of their political positions, therefore solely as Jews.

    Either way – whichever way you cut your argument – the claim that the attack is anti-semitic stands.

    The question people are asking you, and asking you to reflect upon, is why you feel such a need to weigh in pointing out the ‘not entirely innocent’ nature of these Jewish victims. Do you think somehow you’re helping the Palestinians?

  77. Sue R said,

    Mr Collywibbles displays an elementary error of logic. He argues that because some Jews/Hindus have been guilty of anti-Muslim violence in the past, then all Jews/Hindus are equally culpable. How proximate do you have to be to be guilty? That is the terrorists form of reasoning, it fails to distiguish nuances of guilt. I doubt whether the Rabbi and his wife or their visitors had been involved in building illegal settlements. Maybe, they would have done under different circumstances, but those weren’t the circumstances that they found themselves in. I don’t think many of the poor homeless Hindus sleeping in the railway station, or the richer ones dining in the hotels or the Western tourists had spent the morning killing Muslims either. I feel very sad to be on the same planet with such a nasty piece of work.

  78. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    More mind-fucking, race-baiting Zionist crap:

    “The question people are asking you, and asking you to reflect upon, is why you feel such a need to weigh in pointing out the ‘not entirely innocent’ nature of these Jewish victims.”

    To counter the anti-Muslim hate propaganda that portrays Muslim responses to Israeli crimes with Nazi-style anti-semitism. Propaganda whose real logic is genocidal – i.e. these Muslims are all Nazis therefore ‘we’ have no alternative but to crush or even slaughter the whole lot of them to prevent another holocaust of Jews. That is the logic of the mendacious use of accusations of anti-semitism as a propaganda tool to justify anti-Muslim and/or Arab racism today. That is what the polemic at the head of this topic feeds into.

    I am being predictably denounced for telling the truth about the racism of a vile group of bigots whose sentiments many on this blog appear to sympathise with.

  79. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “He argues that because some Jews/Hindus have been guilty of anti-Muslim violence in the past, then all Jews/Hindus are equally culpable.”

    Quote me arguing this. Go on, I challenge you!

    Another feeble lie.

    You have to be pretty damned desperate to invent stuff like this.

  80. Ed said,

    WWW . You think that to identify the murder of Jews as anti-semitism is justify genocide against Muslims…? I can’t think of a better word to describe this than demented.

    Perhaps some people think that by calling anti-semitism by some Muslims anti-semitism, and comparing it to Nazi anti-semitism, they are justifying genocide against Muslims. Such people are, clearly, crazed racists.

    But the idea that *by definition* to think (rationally, having thought about it) that these particular Muslims were motivated by anti-semtism (ie, hatred of Jews, not necessarily ideologically Nazi) means you are ipso facto calling for the slaughter of Muslims… How does that work?

    It’s either true, or it isn’t. It might, I’ll grant you, not be true. But to prove it’s not true you’ll have to do better than assert that the very idea makes me an advocate of genocide against Muslims.

  81. Ed said,

    PS – by ‘mind-fuck’ you appear to mean an argument you can’t reply to.

  82. Wally Wibbywellies said,

    Sorry, but the identification of Arabs/Muslims with Nazism has already fuelled many killings of Palestinians. It is staple of Israeli state propaganda, and has been for a very long time. Its the basic idea that justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the only argument they can use to morally justify the exclusion of millions of Arabs from their homeland.

    It doesn’t take a massive leap of the imagination to see what the logical conclusion of that propaganda is.

    This site is only a small player in that, and if your’e not aware of it then you really need a little bit of edification.

  83. Ed said,

    Are you seriously questioning that many Islamist groups use anti-semitic propaganda? It doesn’t make them Nazis; but not all anti-semitism is Nazi.

    In this case, you seem to be arguing that a particular group, about which presumably you know no more than any of the rest of us, is not anti-semitic, not on any empirical basis at all, but simply because, you assert, to say they are, or even might be, anti-semitic leads you to want the genocide of Muslims (or, I guess, to give you the benefit of the doubt, to be unable to then argue against people who do want the genocide of Muslims).

    But this is utterly preposterous. If it were so, it would make any independent judgement about *anything* impossible – all you could ever do was look at what your enemies think, and then insist on the opposite.

    A rational person can see that groups like the gunmen in Mumbai can be, and frequently are, anti-semitic (often directly borrowing their anti-semitism from European sources, incidentally; it’s not a Muslim thing), and therefore reactionary. But the people who want ‘genocide’ of Muslims, or even to nationally oppress people many of whom are Muslims, are reactionary, too.

    Even *your own argument* suggests the Mumbai attacks were anti-semitic.

  84. SP said,

    Too much time wasted – Weller on the telly.

  85. Wally Wibblwellies said,

    Yet more mindfuck. He can’t dispute that, unlike the bulk of the victims of Mumbai, this rabbi and his cohorts were actually members of a racist group. Yet, apparently only the killings of these racists was, according to our friend, racist.

    Earlier he argued that is was anti-semitic to even mention their killer procilivites and suggest that they might not be innocent victims. Now he is shifting to a process of deduction based on the religion of the terrorists, that they were Muslims, that they must have been anti-semitic (albeit ‘derived from European sources’) therefore. When in fact he knows nothing about them whatsoever.

    I did not derive my characterisation of the Lubavitchers as killers from their Jewish religion, but simply from facts about that specific trend that are in the public domain. I supplied a link. I could have supplied many more links.

    He derives his ‘knowledge’ of the terrorists ‘anti-semitism’ from their Muslim religion and a series of vapid and questionable analogies from other Muslim groups not involved in this incident. And yet I am supposed to be prejudiced, simply for accurately characterising this particular Jewish group and supplying a link that showed their racism and extremism.

    If he could show I had libelled this Jewish group, that they were really a harmless and pacific group, he might be able to argue against me on this, but I didn’t so libel them. He hasn’t been able to contradict my allegation that they were an extremist group – because it is well documented and not disputed.

    He has not shown that these terrorists were specifically motivated by hatred of all Jews, and cannot show that, because no evidence exists that they were. The fact that they attacked and killed people involved with a particular groups of Jews who are extremist, and that support and carry out atrocities themselves, is not evidence that they hate all Jews. Not to anyone who is not a bigot.

    But Ed is an anti-Muslim bigot and a defender of clerical fascists.

  86. voltairespriest said,

    Willywanker, do you have a thing about “zionist mindfuck”? If so, here’s something which could help.

  87. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    So do you have any coherent refutation of what I wrote above. Voltaire’s Priest?

  88. voltairespriest said,

    Don’t attempt to entangle me with your MindFuck, Willy!

    (see, I can use your method of “refutation” as well…)

  89. Ed said,

    WWW. This beggars belief. I did not deduce the Mumbai attackers’ anti-semitism from their religion. I did not even say that they ‘must’ be anti-semitic, only that it seems likely, and your own argument seems in fact to confirm it.

    But – suppose all the murdered Jews were hardened racists, and it was reasonable to suppose that the attackers had studied them individually and that’s why they murdered them.

    Are you trying to tell me that a racist can’t be a victim of racism?

  90. Ed said,

    The link above obviously is accidental.

  91. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    VP:

    “Don’t attempt to entangle me with your MindFuck, Willy! ”

    Dont worry VP, I’m not trying to fuck up your thought processes with a guilt-trip. Just challenging you to argue about something substantial, for a change…

    Ed

    “I did not deduce the Mumbai attackers’ anti-semitism from their religion.”

    And the relevance of the citations from other Muslim trends was therefore….?

    “Are you trying to tell me that a racist can’t be a victim of racism?”

    No. But then again, Ed hasn’t demonstrated that they were killed for being Jews, as opposed to for their bloodthirsty and declared hatred of Muslims which is a matter of public record. But its good to see Ed conceding that the Lubavitcher are racists. I was called an ‘anti-semitic cunt’ for pointing to that fact in this thread. That’s some small progress, I suppose.

  92. Ed said,

    For God’s sake.

    Your argument is that to suggest Muslims can be anti-semitic is to play into the hands of those who want to commit genocide against Muslims. In which case the specific beliefs of the Mumbai attackers are not relevant, but whether or not known Islamist trends do use anti-semitic propaganda obviously is. Whether or not the attackers in Mumbai were anti-semites, other Islamists are.

    You can try to deny this factually if you want, though I’m not sure how. But the argument that to *think it at all* makes you an anti-Muslim bigot who wants the genocide of Muslims – that is the argument of a cretin.

    Anyway you have not even vaguely demonstrated that the Jews in Mumbai were killed for being racists. Nor have you demonstrated that even if they were it would mean the motive for their murder might not still be anti-semitism.

  93. voltairespriest said,

    Willywanker to be honest I can’t be arsed with you. Be happy that Ed and the others think you’re worthy of taking at least semi-seriously.

  94. Ed said,

    Well, not any more. That’s me done. Re-reading the exchange, he can only accuse me of the things he accuses me of if he simply doesn’t bother to read. I thought maybe I’d expressed myself badly. But I don’t think so. Socialism of fools, indeed.

  95. voltairespriest said,

    No, you haven’t expressed yourself badly, ’twas entirely clear. He’s one of those who we would have sought out if he hadn’t turned up of his own accord, because he makes our arguments look even better than they are…

  96. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “Anyway you have not even vaguely demonstrated that the Jews in Mumbai were killed for being racists. Nor have you demonstrated that even if they were it would mean the motive for their murder might not still be anti-semitism.”

    You haven’t remotely demonstrated that they were killed simply for being Jews. It is imposslble to demonstrate that because there is no evidence of that at all. But watch out about this admitting they were racists …. some on this site don’t take too kindly to things like that being spelled out.

    Still, VP never avoids an opportunity to avoid a serious point, and that is par for the course in this milieu in general.

  97. Ed said,

    Oh, Lord. This really is my last go on this. And I try hard on these internet things not to get abusive. But for absolute inability to construct a coherent argument, you take the biscuit, love.

    There is an obvious prima facie case that these Jews were killed for being Jews. 1. They were Jews in a Jewish centre. 2. The attackers appear to be Islamists of some sort, and many Islamists are anti-Semitic.

    Your response is first, that they were *racist* Jews. Leave aside whether this is true or not, or what difference it makes. It’s unclear whether you are saying that they were killed for being racist Jews (and still, note, racist Jews rather than racist, say, Tibetans), or just that, since they were racists, and ‘not entirely innocent’ you can’t really blame people too much for killing them.

    Second, your argument is that to suggest they *were* killed for being Jews, racist or not – just to think that might be the case – is to make you either an advocate of genocide against Muslims, or unable to argue effectively against advocates of genocide against Muslims.

    As far as I can see, these two arguments are the sum total of your case that these people were not killed for being Jews.

    Sorry if spelling this out is fucking you head. But you are, I conclude, about as moronic as anyone I have ever come across in any argument, in the flesh or on line.

  98. voltairespriest said,

    Willywanker, coming as it does from someone who’s said “zionist” and “mindfuck” more times in one thread than I’ve seen since I last looked at a blog run by people who really own tinfoil hats. I take your contempt as a compliment. And of course the feeling is mutual. :)

  99. toner said,

    Im with Willy on this one
    Labeling (libeling) all criticism of Jews as antisemitism deflects from real antisemitism and makes the phrase worthless.
    Also the people attacking Willy have not countered his accusations that the Chabadists are hate filled racists and supremacists
    Also the concentration on the Jewish victims of this atrocity by other posters makes it clear to me that you all feel that Jewish blood is worth more than Goyim blood

    Keep it up Willy, some of us have open eyes and can see the truth.

  100. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    “some are and some aren’t.”

    Wot no link? Any evidence of Chabad Lubavitchers who have spoken out against the Goldstein-worship of that sect, or stood up for the victims of their co-thinkers? Any evidence that the group in India was hostile to the mainstream supremacism and racism of the sect they voluntarily chose to adhere to? Any quotes from Indian leaders denouncing the leaders of the Chabadists as racial supremacists and murderers? Of course not!

    Of course, this feeble hasbara has to be accompanied by the obligatory Nazi-baiting. It doesn’t wash any more … the masses are seeing through it and the more Israeli apologists use it to smear those revolted by Zionism’s crimes, the more they risk inciting real anti-semitism and tarring all Jews with the brush of their cynicism. But of course, political Zionists would actually welcome that: political Zionism has always fed off anti-semitism from the days when Hertzl hobnobbed with von Phleve.

  101. Wally Wibblywellies said,

    Mark Regev’s clone said:

    “defence of your nazi acolyte ‘toner’”

    No idea who toner is. Probably an ordinary internet surfer who stumbled on this debate months later and for expressing an opinion contrary to that of the totalitarian racist element like Agnes Day, is now risibly smeared as a Nazi.

    Who cares what Mark Regev’s clone thinks? Those masses who saw the original on the telly during the Gaza carnage could see he was a shameless liar and perverted murder apologist in the Goebells mode. A walking-talking incitement to anti-semitism. As is Agnes Day.

    And where is the link showing the schism in the Chabad Lubavitchers with the Indian section condemning the activities of its leading figures in brutalising and murdering Palestinians?

    Where is the link? Or other documentary source? There isn’t one!

    Membership of Al Qaeda (best known member Osama Bin Laden), does tend to indicate a proclivity for indiscriminate terrorist violence. Membership of the Chabad Lubavitchers (best known member Baruch Goldstein) similarly indicates an active support for racist murder of Arabs. What a ridiculous analogy … shopping at Tescos indeed. Pathetic.

  102. Sue R said,

    At least these good Muslims doing the killings weren’t converted to Christianity or Judaism. That must be a great relief to you, WillyWanker.

  103. voltairespriest said,

    I think you’re all sounding a bit nuts. No offence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers

%d bloggers like this: