The Jury Talks Back

11/30/2008

Why the Jewish Center?

Filed under: Uncategorized — aunursa @ 2:42 pm

On Thursday during CNN’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks, a CNN security analyst couldn’t understand why the terrorists targeted a Jewish Center:

And we still – but we still do not know a motive.  You know, you look at the Jewish center. Why did they hit the Jewish center? You know, and you look at the other places, you know, big icons where there are going to be a lot of people.  And that’s what terrorists do. They hit places that they consider soft targets where they can have the most bang for the buck, if you will, and where there are a lot of people – hotels, train stations, those kind of things.

Analyst Mike Brooks figured that the terrorists wanted to kill as many people as possible.  He didn’t understand why the they would attack a building with just a few potential victims.  I looked at the TV set in amazement — that  a CNN analyst in 2008 would wonder why the terrorists would attack a Jewish target.

36 Comments

  1. Following the logic of the CNN ‘Security Analyist’, why didn’t the terrorists simply just kill everyone in their own neighborhoods?

    It would save travel costs, the terrorists know the physical layout much better and larger weapons could be used because there’s no need to hide them when moving across borders. Yes, that would make far more sense. As everybody knows, terrorists are simply looking for body counts – it’s all random, and they aren’t actually targeting anybody in particular.

    It’s beginning to look like these terrorists are not only illogical, but both fiscally irresponsible and ignorant of their carbon footprint.

    Comment by Apogee — 11/30/2008 @ 3:52 pm

  2. Was the CNN analyst serious? Instead of revisionist history, this is revisionist current events.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 5:25 pm

  3. These were representatives of the Religion of Peace.
    That they would demonstrate an animus towards fellow Semites is just not understandable to the PC warriors that inhabit the MSM.
    I blame Bush.
    Morons!

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 5:58 pm

  4. These were no more representatives of the entire one billion Muslims worldwide than Timothy McVeigh was a representative of all white Americans.

    Generalizing to an entire society from the acts of individuals is a pernicious habit. “Collective guilt” is almost always wrong.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 6:04 pm

  5. All well and good, except, I would remind you that not all Muslims are terrorists,
    but almost all terrorists are Muslim.

    And, if they all were Paks, they aren’t Semites either, but their religion is of the Semites, and AQ (among other representatives of Islam) have sworn to eradicate the “Zionist evil” that occupies the land between the Jordan and the Sea.
    Anyone who expresses surprise that they would attack Jews is a low-grade moron, and should have no place in journalism.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 6:13 pm

  6. and another thing…
    Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 6:14 pm

  7. I would certainly not express surprise that terrorists calling themselves the Deccan Mujahadeen would attack Jews. Their name makes it clear that they are Muslim, and there is an odd animosity between modern Muslims and Jews.

    But “those were representatives of the religion of peace” is nonetheless problematic rhetoric: it appears to smear every adherent of the religion with the actions of particular individuals.

    Surely we can distinguish between terrorist Muslims and Muslims.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 6:21 pm

  8. Hey, the Left has been smearing Conservatives for the views of Bush for years;
    now you want to get picky?

    Physician, Heal Thyself!

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 6:29 pm

  9. Another Drew: ‘the Left’ may have done so; I have not. :)

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 6:33 pm

  10. aphrael: These were no more representatives of the entire one billion Muslims worldwide than Timothy McVeigh was a representative of all white Americans.

    McVeigh’s motive in bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building was revenge against the United States government for what he considered to be crimes committed during the 1993 siege at Waco. It had nothing to do with advancing a “white American” agenda.

    By contrast, Islamic terrorists have explicitly and repeatedly stated that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate. While they do not represent every one of the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, their motives are most definitely tied to Islam. And a higher percentage of all Muslims support their goals, if not their tactics, than most Westerners would care to admit.

    Comment by aunursa — 11/30/2008 @ 7:07 pm

  11. Comment by aunursa — 11/30/2008 @ 7:07 pm

    Yes, and we need to constantly remind the various interest groups of the Left, what a Caliphate would have in store for them.
    Though, I for one, don’t believe for a minute that they will ever accept the truth of what they deny.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 7:28 pm

  12. The difference between these Muslim murderers and, say, a Christian Eric Rudolph, is that all known authorities of the Christian church denunciated and condemned his actions.

    I await word from the Imams in Pakistan, Iran, and yes, the USA, for the thousands of bombings/murders/tortures that take place in the name of Allah and Mohammed.

    Hence, derision of the “Religion of Peace.” Deal.

    Comment by Ed — 11/30/2008 @ 8:25 pm

  13. aphreal, until the “other” Muslims come out and begin to condemn and counteract the actions of the “few” Muslims, then, yes, they are representing ALL Muslims, not just the “few”…you cannot separate yourself from the group until you actually act like you are doing so….

    Comment by reff — 11/30/2008 @ 8:58 pm

  14. I think plenty of U.S. Muslim authorities have condemned the terrorism. Certainly, many condemned 9/11.

    But the degree of the violence of large groups of Islamists is greater than violence by Christian groups. The degree of denunciation is less. South Park’s Muhammad episode, where they showed Jesus in a poo-flinging contest, did not get the studio burned down for that.

    Part of this is doubtless the degree of power; America’s church-state separation (as originally envisioned by Jefferson and Madison) has helped both religion and government.

    Violations of that separation…. well, Kentucky requires that their Homeland Security Department acknowledge God in all written documentation, and has this God-as-defender as part of their security plan.

    When the position is that the state has been protected because of its godliness, the inference is that those New Yorkers weren’t godly enough. That seems a rather cruel viewpoint. I can’t imagine things would get better if Kentucky were permitted to do more on this front.

    So, I understand that it’s tempting to view this in a manner of neutrality to the religion itself, as some significant number of followers of most religions are menaces. Christianity has a much better present than it does a past on these issues.

    But right now, Islam is behind the curve; the willingness to promote violence against those who disbelieve, and the willingness to promote things like the UN resolution that religions should be exempt from unkind statements, is greater than that of most other religions, and certainly greater than the other major world religions.

    From an earthly standpoint, a religion can be viewed as the effect it has collectively on its adherents. The number of actively violent and the number of supportive Muslims exceeds a comfortable level.

    This certainly doesn’t mean that terrorism washes over all Muslims; that’s not close to true. But if I see a Scientologist near my mailbox, I’m going to be damn careful opening it. Past performance is an indicator of future results.

    –JRM

    Comment by JRM — 11/30/2008 @ 9:13 pm

  15. aunurnsa, it’s so interesting you should point that out: Someone else the other day mentioned to me that the New York Times referred to the Mumbai Chabad house as an “unlikely target.” What is that about???

    I think these outlets must mean something else than we’re taking them to mean. Surely no writer for the NYT is ignorant of militant Muslim antisemitism. But what could they mean instead? Just that it’s a small, insignificant target, especially relative to the high-profile hotels?

    It’s truly baffling to me.

    Comment by Not Rhetorical — 12/1/2008 @ 12:43 am

  16. From the NYT article: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

    Alas, Not Rhetorical, if the NYT writer is not in fact ignorant of militant Islamists’ hatred of Jews, then she feigned ignorance. In either case, it’s not a good sign for journalistic competence.

    Comment by aunursa — 12/1/2008 @ 5:59 am

  17. The NYT hates Jews, especially Israeli Jews. They can’t understand why it is exceptional for Islamists to target and kill Jews. AND, they won’t until the Islamists kill Jews at the NYT and within the Democrat congress.

    Comment by PCD — 12/1/2008 @ 6:15 am

  18. PCD,

    The true irony being that some level of that feeling towards Jews pervades almost all levels of the Democratic party, and yet the Jews still vote (D) come election day.

    I have yet to figure out why.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/1/2008 @ 6:24 am

  19. Scott, because there are many Jews that are “Reformed” who are Jews in name only. They aren’t religious and could care less about their history. They are the intellectual descendants of the Jews that helped the Communists take over Russia, and were killed shortly there after.

    Comment by PCD — 12/1/2008 @ 6:53 am

  20. JRM, thank you for making my point in a much more direct way that I did….

    As you point out: But right now, Islam is behind the curve; the willingness to promote violence against those who disbelieve, and the willingness to promote things like the UN resolution that religions should be exempt from unkind statements, is greater than that of most other religions, and certainly greater than the other major world religions.

    Comment by reff — 12/1/2008 @ 6:58 am

  21. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.

    Except…
    They identified their targets, and directions to them, using Google.
    There were no accidental targets, each team knew exactly where they were going, and what they were going to do when they got there.

    Comment by Another Drew — 12/1/2008 @ 8:27 am

  22. Scott: in California, both Democratic Senators are themselves Jews, something which i’ve never seen mentioned in a political context, because as far as I can tell nobody cares.

    Comment by aphrael — 12/1/2008 @ 9:43 am

  23. […] Not Rhetorical pointed out that The New York Times, a paper owned and run by a Jewish family, said that “the […]

    Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Too obvious for the professional journalists — 12/1/2008 @ 10:12 am

  24. @ aphrael: The difference of course is that White America (and Black America, and Hispanic America) soundly condemned McVeigh… where are the rousing sounds of Muslims condemning this act of terrorism?

    Comment by Anon E. Moose — 12/1/2008 @ 1:05 pm

  25. Anon E Moose: how would I know? I don’t read Arabic. :) And I’m not sure that I trust the western press to care enough to report accurately what the Arabic language press is saying.

    Comment by aphrael — 12/1/2008 @ 2:14 pm

  26. Yo’ve GOT to be kidding me! A Target of opportunity?!??! and Accident? It was the southernmost target, depending, it was the starting or ending point. (Chronology being reviewed)
    It;s the same demented thought process that screams “Profiling!” when Arabic males from 18 to 40 were being scrutinized after 9/11.
    For chrissake, every Arab NATION has a problem with the Jews.
    Please Aunursa, please don’t tell me you actually BUY this foolishness?

    Comment by pitchforkntorches — 12/1/2008 @ 5:17 pm

  27. Back to the original post: Unfreaken believable! “Duh, say Wilbur, why would Muslim extremists target a Jewish Center?” Duh, I don’t understand, duh I’m an American Media Whore. Duh.

    Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 12/1/2008 @ 5:48 pm

  28. pitchforkntorches: Please Aunursa, please don’t tell me you actually BUY this foolishness?

    I admit that I am at a loss to respond … as I’m unsure to which statement or comment this question is addressed.

    Comment by aunursa — 12/1/2008 @ 8:08 pm

  29. Wow, it really is a mystery. Right now I’m watching the live video stream of the Holtzbergs’ funeral in Israel, and wondering why on earth Moslems would seek out Jews in India to kill. Had the attackers been members of the American Patriot movement, or maybe the Texan Republican Party, the explanation would have been obvious, but Moslems? That really is a head-scratcher for the ages.

    Comment by Milhouse — 12/2/2008 @ 4:40 am

  30. Dennis Prager explains all to CNN and the NYT: The Rabbi and the Terrorist

    Why would a terrorist group of Islamists from Pakistan whose primary goal is to have Pakistan gain control of the third of Kashmir that belongs to India and therefore aimed to destabilize India’s major city devote so much of its efforts — 20 percent of its force of 10 gunmen whose stated goal was to kill 5,000 — to killing a rabbi and any Jews with him?

    The question echoes one from World War II: Why did Hitler devote so much time, money, and manpower in order to murder every Jewish man, woman, and child in every country the Nazis occupied? Why did Hitler … weaken the Nazi war effort by diverting money, troops, and military vehicles from fighting the Allies to rounding up Jews and shipping them to death camps?

    From the perspective of political scientists, historians, and contemporary journalists, the answer to these questions is not rational. But the non-rationality of an answer is not synonymous with its non-validity.

    Comment by aunursa — 12/2/2008 @ 5:45 am

  31. #22: “in California, both Democratic Senators are themselves Jews”. Dianne Feinstein has many Jewish connections, including her second husband whose name she carries, but as far as I know she’s not herself Jewish, at least according to Jewish law.

    #23: “Not Rhetorical pointed out that The New York Times, a paper owned and run by a Jewish family”. Actually, the Sulzbergers are Episcopalian.

    Comment by Milhouse — 12/2/2008 @ 7:51 am

  32. General observations are helpful if they are kept general. Saying that most recent terrorist slayings were perpetrated by Muslims is a general comment (actually, it is a fact). It in no way implies that all, or even most, Muslims are terrorists. Well, that is for those who are accustomed to think reasonably.

    Oh, and I have a Jewish governor and a Jewish senator. One Democrat, the other Republican. Not that anyone cares.

    Comment by Amphipolis — 12/2/2008 @ 9:34 am


  33. During the cold war between capitalism and socialism the arab and muslim regimes were very happy because they had an enemy , who is non religious – Thus they had a cause to fight against . Accordingly they had the excuse to mobilize energies of their youth and nations against the non muslim enemy . Moreover , any internal political opponents were being accused for collaboration with the non religious enemy , thus were easily eliminated . But today , the situation have changed and the socialist turned out to be capitalists and christians. Therefore, the arab rulers do not have an enemy. Therefore, they need to agitate the religious factor to keep the enmity momentum going among different religions, because that is how they acquire their legality to survive and remain in power. Thus the attack against the peaceful jewish centre in mumbai .

    Comment by A. Q. Munasser — 12/2/2008 @ 10:04 pm

  34. In response to “Apogee” (11-30-2008):

    These terrorists, and terrorists in general, did not kill merely for the “body count” as it was put. There is a point to the act of terrorism, it is not done in vain. Terrorism is an act of rebellion against a larger problem or for the control of a region; in this case these terrorists were targeting India’s infrastructure where it would hurt the most: luxury hotels that bring in many tourists and much revenue, train stains, popular indian restaurants, new cinemas, etc. An attack in a surrounding neighborhood would not have created an impact near the size needed to draw the attention they sought.

    As for the question of “why the jewish center,” I believe A. Q. Munasser (12-2-2008) has the best hypothesis and analysis.

    Comment by Dana M. C. — 12/3/2008 @ 6:30 pm

  35. Dana M.C. – my comment was facetious.

    Comment by Apogee — 12/3/2008 @ 10:53 pm

  36. “…how would I know? I don’t read Arabic. And I’m not sure that I trust the western press to care enough to report accurately what the Arabic language press is saying.”

    Aphrael, I suggest that, just for starters, you check out MEMRI. There are lots of websites that report what Muslims say to each other (as opposed to what they say to Westerners.)

    Comment by pst314 — 12/4/2008 @ 5:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.