The powerful jewish lobby controls US foreign policy

A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The powerful jewish lobby controls US foreign policy

Ah yes, ready to pounce on the antisemite. Sorry but it is an article in Haaretz by an israeli Jew.

www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/break-away-from-the-jewish-lobby-1.411091

And it controls not only the US government but the Israeli government.

Break away from the Jewish lobby

By Oudeh Basharat
  

We have a prime minister who was elected thanks mainly to donations from abroad. Some 98 percent of the donations that Benjamin Netanyahu received for the Likud primaries of 2005 came from foreign donors, most of them Americans. The phenomenon of raising money primarily from abroad repeated itself in last week's Likud elections. The foreign tycoons do not make do merely with supporting a candidate. They also help the citizens of Israel choose the correct candidate with the aid of a partisan press. The American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who of course has a warm Jewish heart, determines the social and political agenda of Israel by means of a far-right newspaper that he funds, which is distributed free. From time to time, we also hear reports of the various kinds of perks the prime minister enjoys, provided by these same wealthy donors. The paradox here is that some of the representatives appointed by these wealthy men from abroad have the chutzpah to take action to stop funding from non-partisan, civilian NGOs that contribute to society through human rights and pro-democracy activities.

This is part of a more worrisome phenomenon in which the nice lobby that is located thousands of miles from here is distancing us light years away from the possibility of establishing peace in the region. It was because of pressure from the American Jewish lobby that President Barack Obama decided to retreat from his demand that construction on the settlements be frozen as a condition for the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Jewish lobby twisted Obama's arm at a time when the Arab world, which is undergoing stormy upheavals, expected him to show a reasonable measure of balance. Not only did the president of a superpower become irrelevant, but the peace process itself also got stuck. It is so deeply mired now that the hearts of even sworn optimists are filled with despair. Because of the money it wields and its organizational capability, the Jewish lobby is able to influence candidates for the American presidency, swaying them to fall in line with the most extremist policies that Israel has ever adopted. And by relying on the influence of the Jewish lobby, the Netanyahu government is continuing to show contempt for international law. This lobby is the perfect gift for the anti-Semites who use this conduct as an excuse for attacking "the Jews."

The truth is that without even noticing it the Arabs have reconciled themselves to Israel's existence despite the terrible suffering inflicted upon them. The problem is that many Israelis have not reconciled themselves to being here. Lust for America beats in their hearts and makes them crazy.

The difficulties in deciding between the (Middle Eastern ) "jungle" and the (American ) "villa" leads those who conceived of the jungle idea to live, at least in their minds, in America. Those who want to live here, whether it is a "jungle" or a paradise, must first and foremost love the place and care for those who live here and their neighbors. The Arabic proverb says: "Put your close neighbor before your brother who is far off." But in Israel, starting with the war against Egypt in 1956 right up until today when there is such an icey attitude toward the Arab Spring, people have not heard of this saying. Israel must decide whether it is the bridgehead of all the crazy Westerners in the Middle East, or whether it will stand by the Arab people in their struggles against internal and external oppressors.

At the moment, the Jewish lobby has drawn up a treaty with U.S. neoconservatives, against anything that smells of freedom in the Middle East. The time has come to make a decision. If the goal is integration into the region, then it is essential to break away from the Jewish lobby. But apparently there are some who see America as the place where they will live after retiring from their years of service in the Middle East. Meanwhile Newt Gingrich (who hopes to be the Republican presidential candidate ) and Sheldon Adelson can continue to fan the flames. What do they care? After all, it is not the blood of their children that will be spilled in the Middle Eastern jungle. Nor will the cries of pain of Arabs and Jews reach them behind the closed windows of the towers in Manhattan.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Name me one government in

Name me one government in the west that DOES NOT have lobbies of various labels that do not try to vie for government attention.

Atheists have lobbies too. Now a better argument to make would be influence peddling on anyone's part. But humans will do what humans do, compete for government attention.

Everything you argue is about Jews and how evil they are which is bullshit. You can make all the rightful arguments about favoritism, but make it about favoritism, not Jews. In Islam the government favors Muslims, same shit different label.

Jews do NOT deserve a pedestal nor should they have undue influence on government, but this is a matter of HOW ANY religion relates to government, not just Jews. Christians have as much a lobby as Jews do, if not more. The issue is money and power, not labels. Monopolies are the issue. Human behavior is the issue.

ARGUE FOR government neutrality. THAT is the issue.

The problem I see in America has to do more with big money and big business. Jews are like any other citizen and have the same rights to "petition the government for a redress of grievance" and the right to "peaceably assemble".

I am so sick of you treating fellow human beings as a sub species. "Jew" is a label. "Atheist" is a label, "Christian" is a label, "Muslim" is a label. But we all shit and pee and will die like ALL of the 7 billion on this planet. WE are not a separate species.

Your poor me crap is as bad as when Jews do it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Everything you

Brian37 wrote:

Everything you argue is about Jews and how evil they are which is bullshit.

Brian, Nony doesn't claim that Jews are evil, just that Zionists are. His specific statement is "anti-Zionism is a moral imperative".

Here's the wikipedia definition of Zionism:

Zionism is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.

If this definition is correct, I don't see how being a Zionist automatically makes one immoral.

However, you both actually agree that some aspects of Zionism are bad: you are against a specifically Jewish state because it would discriminate against non-Jews; Nony is against Israel because it is composed of stolen land.

As for the stolen land, here is a brief discussion from the "invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING" thread:

blacklight915 wrote:

You do realize that not ALL the land making up Israel was confiscated using the "Absentees Property Law". The estimates I found vary widely: they go from about 12% to about 70%.

Here's the link for the wikipedia page I got my info from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_.27Absentees_Property_Law.27

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Fisk is generally reliable and he used the go to source for the information putting the fraction at 70%. You do realize that causing owners to be absent under pain of summary execution is theft under color of law.

The distinction between all and 70% is for purists. Some other methods of acquisition, including fraudulent bills a sale, account for much of it. Declation of public land is another. It continues to this day in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank. Any such declaration in occupied territory was determined to be a hanging offense at Nuremberg. All occupied territories may only be administered for the benefit of the occupied people save as a strict military necesity.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:

Name me one government in the west that DOES NOT have lobbies of various labels that do not try to vie for government attention.

I have no idea about the laws in your country. In the US lobbying on behalf of a foreign government requires registration as an agent of that government. The Israeli lobbies are not so registered. Therefore they are either criminal or disloyal. As they have not been prosecuted one assumes their actions do not rise to criminal. That leaves disloyal, putting the interests of a foreign power ahead of the interests of the US. This is established by the fact that the lobbyists support the policies of the elected government rather than that of the country itself making them a US arm of the government regardless of the government.

Is there anything else?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Everything you argue is about Jews and how evil they are which is bullshit.

Brian, Nony doesn't claim that Jews are evil, just that Zionists are. His specific statement is "anti-Zionism is a moral imperative".

Evil is an abstract noun. If we have to deal with evil it is a job for Buffy -- who still rules BTW. By definition a Zionist is a thief and a murderer as the definition that even Wikipedia gives requires both to be achieved.

Would that someone would ask Romney if his support for Israel extends to the same for Mormons.

Quote:
Here's the wikipedia definition of Zionism:

Zionism is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.

If this definition is correct, I don't see how being a Zionist automatically makes one immoral.

How does one accomplish that without violence? In Antarctica perhaps. Stalin did create one but they did not like it. I have read it still exists.

Quote:
However, you both actually agree that some aspects of Zionism are bad: you are against a specifically Jewish state because it would discriminate against non-Jews; Nony is against Israel because it is composed of stolen land.

I have said the rightful owners have the same right to justice in the matter of the return of private property that Israel claims for Jews in the matters surrounding WWII. There is a standard of justice. Jews have established it.

Quote:
As for the stolen land, here is a brief discussion from the "invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING" thread:

blacklight915 wrote:

You do realize that not ALL the land making up Israel was confiscated using the "Absentees Property Law". The estimates I found vary widely: they go from about 12% to about 70%.

Here's the link for the wikipedia page I got my info from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_.27Absentees_Property_Law.27

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Fisk is generally reliable and he used the go to source for the information putting the fraction at 70%. You do realize that causing owners to be absent under pain of summary execution is theft under color of law.

The distinction between all and 70% is for purists. Some other methods of acquisition, including fraudulent bills a sale, account for much of it. Declation of public land is another. It continues to this day in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank. Any such declaration in occupied territory was determined to be a hanging offense at Nuremberg. All occupied territories may only be administered for the benefit of the occupied people save as a strict military necesity.

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:How does

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How does one accomplish that without violence? In Antarctica perhaps. Stalin did create one but they did not like it. I have read it still exists.

By persuading everyone on the piece of land they want to willingly sell it or give it up. If the idea and their arguments in favor of it are good enough, said people will be willing to sell or donate their land. This may be extremely difficult to accomplish, but it is still theoretically possible.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have said the rightful owners have the same right to justice in the matter of the return of private property that Israel claims for Jews in the matters surrounding WWII. There is a standard of justice. Jews have established it.

Could you point me to an online source explaining this standard of justice and how it came to be?

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How does one accomplish that without violence? In Antarctica perhaps. Stalin did create one but they did not like it. I have read it still exists.

By persuading everyone on the piece of land they want to willingly sell it or give it up. If the idea and their arguments in favor of it are good enough, said people will be willing to sell or donate their land. This may be extremely difficult to accomplish, but it is still theoretically possible.

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I have said the rightful owners have the same right to justice in the matter of the return of private property that Israel claims for Jews in the matters surrounding WWII. There is a standard of justice. Jews have established it.

Could you point me to an online source explaining this standard of justice and how it came to be?

Point you to Jewish claims to restitution from Germany, Poland, Hungary and other countries? I have no problem pointing you in the right direction but after that I limit myself to discussion. OK, you are still in college. I got out (escaped) in 1967. I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

If you wish to take a longer view you need only look into private property over the millennia. There was an entire serfdom/dark ages thing in the west where local nobility owned the land but they were still the owners. Individuals did not own the land they worked in that sense. Try to remove them from land to which they had hereditary claims you had a revolt on your hands. When the Normans took over England they claimed ownership of the nobles they defeated. Their peasants back in Normandy stayed there. It was a matter of sovereignty.

You can find consistent examples of private ownership going back as far as there are records. There is no evidence it was ever a new idea.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The real

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

So, convincing everyone on a piece of land to sell or donate it is impossible?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

Are you saying you hate teaching people?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

What do you mean by "sovereignty"?  Could you explain this statement in a bit more detail?

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
To Blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

So, convincing everyone on a piece of land to sell or donate it is impossible?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

Are you saying you hate teaching people?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

What do you mean by "sovereignty"?  Could you explain this statement in a bit more detail?

 

 

 

                        The Rothscheild  Family bought land in the middle East so they could donate it 'for the establishment of a Jewish state'  [before 1920] ;  Good for them!!!!  PROBLEM!!   The land is in Syria,   north of what is 'Israeli occupied Golan heights.'  The 'Jewish state'  ceded that land claim in 1947.  As far as I know the 'Rothscheild trust' still owns the land [probably NOT].  

 

 

                        Herzel Zionist's [mostly East europeans]  started buying land  from the Palastinian owners; with permission from the Ottoman Turks in the  1870's. Sovreignty was never an issue.  D'Israeli Zionists were buying up land in Kenya & Uganda for the same reason's. A Jewish state in East Africa never made sense.  A Jewish state in the land of Judaisim DID;   Under the sovreignty of the Ottoman Caliph!!!!!  These ideals started when  "No one thought" the Caliph in Istanbul would disappear.    SURPRISE!!!  Shit  happens. The Caliph is gone but the written contracts are still valide;  so says the 'Young Turks' according to President Kamal Attaturk. 

 

 

 

                      Israel exists because the "OWNER"  The new Turkey via 'their President" Attaturk allowed it to.    Jewish Israel and muslim Turkey are still close allies, even today.

 

 

                       The shithead who started this post isn't worth the time of day;  ignor IT,  I do.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
To Blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

So, convincing everyone on a piece of land to sell or donate it is impossible?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

Are you saying you hate teaching people?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

What do you mean by "sovereignty"?  Could you explain this statement in a bit more detail?

 

 

 

                        The Rothscheild  Family bought land in the middle East so they could donate it 'for the establishment of a Jewish state'  [before 1920] ;  Good for them!!!!  PROBLEM!!   The land is in Syria,   north of what is 'Israeli occupied Golan heights.'  The 'Jewish state'  ceded that land claim in 1947.  As far as I know the 'Rothscheild trust' still owns the land [probably NOT].  

 

 

                        Herzel Zionist's [mostly East europeans]  started buying land  from the Palastinian owners; with permission from the Ottoman Turks in the  1870's. Sovreignty was never an issue.  D'Israeli Zionists were buying up land in Kenya & Uganda for the same reason's. A Jewish state in East Africa never made sense.  A Jewish state in the land of Judaisim DID;   Under the sovreignty of the Ottoman Caliph!!!!!  These ideals started when  "No one thought" the Caliph in Istanbul would disappear.    SURPRISE!!!  Shit  happens. The Caliph is gone but the written contracts are still valide;  so says the 'Young Turks' according to President Amal Attaturk. 

 

 

 

                      Israel exists because the "OWNER"  The new Turkey via 'their President" Attaturk allowed it to.    Jewish Israel and muslim Turkey are still close allies, even today.

 

 

                       The shithead who started this post isn't worth the time of day;  ignor IT,  I do.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
To Blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

So, convincing everyone on a piece of land to sell or donate it is impossible?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

Are you saying you hate teaching people?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

What do you mean by "sovereignty"?  Could you explain this statement in a bit more detail?

 

 

 

                        The Rothscheild  Family bought land in the middle East so they could donate it 'for the establishment of a Jewish state'  [before 1920] ;  Good for them!!!!  PROBLEM!!   The land is in Syria,   north of what is 'Israeli occupied Golan heights.'  The 'Jewish state'  ceded that land claim in 1947.  As far as I know the 'Rothscheild trust' still owns the land [probably NOT].  

 

 

                        Herzel Zionist's [mostly East europeans]  started buying land  from the Palastinian owners; with permission from the Ottoman Turks in the  1870's. Sovreignty was never an issue.  D'Israeli Zionists were buying up land in Kenya & Uganda for the same reason's. A Jewish state in East Africa never made sense.  A Jewish state in the land of Judaisim DID;   Under the sovreignty of the Ottoman Caliph!!!!!  These ideals started when  "No one thought" the Caliph in Istanbul would disappear.    SURPRISE!!!  Shit  happens. The Caliph is gone but the written contracts are still valide;  so says the 'Young Turks' according to President Kamal Attaturk. 

 

 

 

                      Israel exists because the "OWNER"  The new Turkey via 'their President" Attaturk allowed it to.    Jewish Israel and muslim Turkey are still close allies, even today.

 

 

                       The shithead who started this post isn't worth the time of day;  ignor IT,  I do.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
   C           

 

 

 

C              Could a moderator remove posts #9   #10 AND #11 FROM THIS SITE.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:The shithead

Jeffrick wrote:

The shithead who started this post isn't worth the time of day;  ignor IT,  I do.

I'm assuming you're calling A_Nony_Mouse a shithead. While you may be correct, insulting someone with strong beliefs only strengthens his/her beliefs. Additionally, I am generally interested in the reasons people have for holding their beliefs.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The real world is not theory. Theory explains facts. No facts suggest the theory is valid. Therefore it is not theoretically possible. If you are dealing with the real world then only valid theories are admissible.

So, convincing everyone on a piece of land to sell or donate it is impossible?

I await successful examples of it so we can discuss how it worked in practice. You might start with the fantasy sold to the stupid "third jew" that it would work in Palestine.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I always hated the pedagogical didactic while in college and gained no taste for it afterwards.

Are you saying you hate teaching people?

Absolutely! And I have no problem hassling people until they give up and learn for themselves. It sort of comes with the territory.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Additionally you confuse sovereignty with ownership which in all of human history save in Soviet communism have been separate issues. Certainly people can sell land. That does not change sovereignty.

What do you mean by "sovereignty"?  Could you explain this statement in a bit more detail?

google def:sovereignty

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jeffrick wrote:
The Rothscheild  Family bought land in the middle East so they could donate it 'for the establishment of a Jewish state'  [before 1920] ;  Good for them!!!!  PROBLEM!!   The land is in Syria,   north of what is 'Israeli occupied Golan heights.'  The 'Jewish state'  ceded that land claim in 1947.  As far as I know the 'Rothscheild trust' still owns the land [probably NOT].


Lets see. The Rothschilds bought land in downtown London which they donated to a Jewish state. The Queen said, "Fine with me. It is now sovereign Israel." What is obviously absurd regarding British sovereignty is equally absurd when applied to Palestine. Do you izziehuggers still expect people to buy into that crap?

BTW: The Syrian Heights are called occupied Syria.

There is no "jewish state" save in the demented fantasies of torahthumpers. Israel declares it is a democracy not a theocracy.

Quote:
Herzel Zionist's [mostly East europeans]  started buying land  from the Palastinian owners; with permission from the Ottoman Turks in the  1870's. Sovreignty was never an issue.  D'Israeli Zionists were buying up land in Kenya & Uganda for the same reason's. A Jewish state in East Africa never made sense.  A Jewish state in the land of Judaisim DID;   Under the sovreignty of the Ottoman Caliph!!!!!  These ideals started when  "No one thought" the Caliph in Istanbul would disappear.    SURPRISE!!!  Shit  happens. The Caliph is gone but the written contracts are still valide;  so says the 'Young Turks' according to President Kamal Attaturk.

What sense does it make other than inside of historical Judea? There is no physical evidence the Yahoo cult existed any place else save by military conquest. Josephus recounts the conquests of Samaria, the Galilee and Iodumaea and imposing the cult on them. You don't take that Septuagint crap seriously do you? No rational person does as it is contrary to the archaeological evidence.

What sense does it make when all the Jews who left did so voluntarily? All that expulsion by the Romans crap was first debunked in the 5th c. Even if it were true the gripe is with Italy.

Regarding these contracts they never amounted to more than 7% of Palestine. Also the zionist animals violated the rule of ownership by evicting the people working the land breaking several thousand years of custom.

Once the Ottoman empire lost sovereignty over Palestine its opinion became worthless. What was recognized by the government of Palestine is all that mattered.

Quote:
Israel exists because the "OWNER"  The new Turkey via 'their President" Attaturk allowed it to. Jewish Israel and muslim Turkey are still close allies, even today.

Sort of amazing you expect people to be so stupid or are so stupid yourself as to have missed the entire first world war and the British mandate period. So incredibly (either way) stupid as to think Turkey had any say in mandate Palestine.

Adding to the (either way) incredible stupidity is pretending the Turks and Israel as still allies of any kind after the Israeli mass murder of Turks on the Mavi Mamara a couple years ago.

Quote:
The shithead who started this post isn't worth the time of day;  ignor IT,  I do.

Perhaps I enjoy the opportunity to expose the abysmal ignorance or malicious propaganda of the izziehuggers. By definition all zionists are murderers and thieves. The only good zionist is a dead zionist.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wryly chuckles.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

By definition all zionists are murderers and thieves. The only good zionist is a dead zionist.

 

So much energy spent on so much moral inconsistency. Every time you argue like this for the affirmative you simply prove the negative, Non.

You can make your legitimate case in support of the Palestinians without all this hatred. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I await

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I await successful examples of it so we can discuss how it worked in practice. You might start with the fantasy sold to the stupid "third jew" that it would work in Palestine.

I suppose I shouldn't bother bringing up the difference between "has never happened" and "will never happen"?  Or the difference between "extremely difficult" and "impossible"?

The statement "because there are no examples of X being accomplished in the past, X is impossible to accomplish" is logically false, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Additionally, the statements "I believe the land currently governed by the state of Israel should belong to the Jewish people", "I am against the state of Israel because of its criminal policies against the Palestinians and other non-Jews" and "I condemn the use of force to obtain any land for a Jewish state" are not mutually exclusive--one can believe all three without contradiction or logical inconsistency.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Absolutely! And I have no problem hassling people until they give up and learn for themselves. It sort of comes with the territory.

And what territory would that be?

What I am interested in learning are the reasons you've arrived at your conclusions about Israel and the Holocaust--these I cannot learn without asking you.

 

sovereignty: supreme power or authority, the authority of a state to govern itself or another state, a self governing state

I'm assuming the second and third phrases are what you're referring to.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

By definition all zionists are murderers and thieves. The only good zionist is a dead zionist.

Do you honestly believe this?  Or were you just pissed off?  Seriously, can you not see how fucked up that statement is?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I await successful examples of it so we can discuss how it worked in practice. You might start with the fantasy sold to the stupid "third jew" that it would work in Palestine.

I suppose I shouldn't bother bringing up the difference between "has never happened" and "will never happen"?  Or the difference between "extremely difficult" and "impossible"?

That is correct. You should not bring it up until you have a proven method. Anyone can postulate their fondest fantasy occurring and then speculating on the consequences. You could tell me about the child Jenifer Aniston [insert your favorite] will give you when he grows up. It neatly leaps over the difference between extremely difficult and impossible. So does the insertion of Justin Beaver to the same end -- there is always cloning.

Quote:
The statement "because there are no examples of X being accomplished in the past, X is impossible to accomplish" is logically false, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If you assume purely X then of course it is fallacious -- not false. But to assume the desired results of X in the past will be identical to a different method of accomplishing X in the future is adding a condition that is not in the original assertion.

Take for example applying the same "argument" to the man in 1880 who just broke his leg jumping off a roof while flapping his canvas wings. Of course his failure does not mean than man will never fly. It does mean "I just flew in from Chicago and my arms are tired" will not stop being a joke. It would have stopped being a joke if wings attached to flapping arms could work. You cannot attach unstated consequences to X.

Similarly the best first response to this should have been to point out the Dutch did buy Manhattan Island. Had that been done I would have immediately gone to methods and consequences. The quick answer is that worked because a 6000 year more advanced culture met hunter-gatherers who had more land than they had the technology to exploit and for whom beads and trinket were like hand-held super-computers from space aliens to us. Nothing remotely comparable has existed since the discovery of Australia.

Nothing remotely comparable in available land, cultural advancement differences, nor value of trade goods.

It did not exist in Palestine. When Florida decided to get into the orange/citrus fruit business the locals went to Palestine to learn how. They hired Palestinians to come to Florida to teach and supervise. Far from hunter-gatherers they had in fact exploited the land to its carrying capacity.

What had not existed for centuries did not exist in Palestine in the 20th c. Can it happen in the future with specified consequences based upon buying Manhattan? Sounds like something National Lampoon should address.

Quote:
Additionally, the statements "I believe the land currently governed by the state of Israel should belong to the Jewish people", "I am against the state of Israel because of its criminal policies against the Palestinians and other non-Jews" and "I condemn the use of force to obtain any land for a Jewish state" are not mutually exclusive--one can believe all three without contradiction or logical inconsistency.

Sounds like you are trying to imitate the Red Queen. Lewis Carroll dealt with that nonsense a very long time ago.

BELIEVING mutually exclusive things can be true is only a testimony to the irrationality of belief.

If this website shows anything it is that belief is worthless as a guide to anything.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Absolutely! And I have no problem hassling people until they give up and learn for themselves. It sort of comes with the territory.

And what territory would that be?

Not liking the idea of teaching people. If they say they learned from me that implies I am responsible. If I assume responsibility for teaching that does make me responsible for what they take away. I am completely irresponsible. Anyone who picks up anything from me is on their own with what they do with it. I wash my hands. I will not get them dirty.

Quote:
What I am interested in learning are the reasons you've arrived at your conclusions about Israel and the Holocaust--these I cannot learn without asking you.

Have I not told you. ZERO evidence to the essential assertions. Yet you continue to probe extraneous material. Why?

Quote:
sovereignty: supreme power or authority, the authority of a state to govern itself or another state, a self governing state

I'm assuming the second and third phrases are what you're referring to.

Do you see land ownership any place in that definition? You do not therefore ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

By definition all zionists are murderers and thieves. The only good zionist is a dead zionist.

Do you honestly believe this?  Or were you just pissed off?  Seriously, can you not see how fucked up that statement is?

A political philosophy which can only be accomplished by theft and murder and WAS accomplished by theft and murder means all adherents to the political philosophy are thieves and murderers. Please explain how a statement of the obvious is "fucked". Do you object to "the only good murder is a dead murderer"? Are foot soldiers innocent from ignorance? Are people not responsible for their own ignorance? Do people ignorant of the consequences of grabbing a downed power line get a do over?

The world don't work that way.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:That is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is correct. You should not bring it up until you have a proven method. Anyone can postulate their fondest fantasy occurring and then speculating on the consequences. You could tell me about the child Jenifer Aniston [insert your favorite] will give you when he grows up. It neatly leaps over the difference between extremely difficult and impossible. So does the insertion of Justin Beaver to the same end -- there is always cloning.

You're exactly right: while these things are not impossible, they will likely never occur. So, if you were to state that "accomplishing Zionism without theft and murder is a fantasy and will never happen in our lifetimes" then I would agree with you.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Take for example applying the same "argument" to the man in 1880 who just broke his leg jumping off a roof while flapping his canvas wings. Of course his failure does not mean than man will never fly. It does mean "I just flew in from Chicago and my arms are tired" will not stop being a joke. It would have stopped being a joke if wings attached to flapping arms could work. You cannot attach unstated consequences to X.

I'm guessing that wings attached to flapping arms cannot work because of human anatomy. Still, it does not follow that such a thing will never work.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sounds like you are trying to imitate the Red Queen. Lewis Carroll dealt with that nonsense a very long time ago.

BELIEVING mutually exclusive things can be true is only a testimony to the irrationality of belief.

Except that I specifically stated that those three things weren't mutually exclusive. And they aren't. I agree that I have no proven method -- that still doesn't make it impossible.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Have I not told you. ZERO evidence to the essential assertions. Yet you continue to probe extraneous material. Why?

Because when I looked at the same information, I did find evidence of the essential assertions. It seems to me that you have an unusually high standard of evidence for the Holocaust which you don't extend to most other assertions.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Do you see land ownership any place in that definition? You do not therefore ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty.

Why is google's definition of "sovereignty" legitimate but its definition of "holocaust" isn't?  Both are anonymous and have no sources backing them up.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Do you object to "the only good murder is a dead murderer"?

Uh, yeah, I do. A murderer who never kills again and attempts to alleviate the suffering he/she caused is far better than a murderer who is put to death.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are foot soldiers innocent from ignorance?

I could be wrong, but I thought low-ranking soldiers couldn't be charged with crimes for following orders because of the way the military command structure works.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I haven't noticed much of a

I haven't noticed much of a Jewish Lobby since it was proven that Bible-Thumpers and Tough Italian Guys could produce flicks (including the adult entertainment kind) as well as any... "Jewish" person.

I have, however, noticed an fanatically Pro-Israel lobby in certain parts of Congress. Probably the Executive Branch at certain points in history, but not a Jewish Lobby.

 

Then again... there is always Ben Bernanke.

"Spinning, literal imagery of Emmanuel Goldstein" comes to mind.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is correct. You should not bring it up until you have a proven method. Anyone can postulate their fondest fantasy occurring and then speculating on the consequences. You could tell me about the child Jenifer Aniston [insert your favorite] will give you when he grows up. It neatly leaps over the difference between extremely difficult and impossible. So does the insertion of Justin Beaver to the same end -- there is always cloning.

You're exactly right: while these things are not impossible, they will likely never occur. So, if you were to state that "accomplishing Zionism without theft and murder is a fantasy and will never happen in our lifetimes" then I would agree with you.

It is reasonable to assume that a 6000 year civilization difference will not occur for at least another 6000 years.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Take for example applying the same "argument" to the man in 1880 who just broke his leg jumping off a roof while flapping his canvas wings. Of course his failure does not mean than man will never fly. It does mean "I just flew in from Chicago and my arms are tired" will not stop being a joke. It would have stopped being a joke if wings attached to flapping arms could work. You cannot attach unstated consequences to X.

I'm guessing that wings attached to flapping arms cannot work because of human anatomy. Still, it does not follow that such a thing will never work.

If I had repeated the word canvas in describing the wings I would be asking after the future defintion of canvas. Human powered flight has been demonstrated using materials with strength to weight ratios literally undreamed of a century ago. Again you cannot attach an unstated Y to the X premise.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Sounds like you are trying to imitate the Red Queen. Lewis Carroll dealt with that nonsense a very long time ago.

BELIEVING mutually exclusive things can be true is only a testimony to the irrationality of belief.

Except that I specifically stated that those three things weren't mutually exclusive. And they aren't. I agree that I have no proven method -- that still doesn't make it impossible.

Stating they are not does not make a fact. Hidden defintions do not apply. Ys and Zs and the rest do not apply. The words can only have the current accepted meanings. They are mutually exclusive by the commonly accepted meanings of the words.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Have I not told you. ZERO evidence to the essential assertions. Yet you continue to probe extraneous material. Why?

Because when I looked at the same information, I did find evidence of the essential assertions. It seems to me that you have an unusually high standard of evidence for the Holocaust which you don't extend to most other assertions.

I ONLY addressed the absence of evidence for 6 million in 1945 or absence of a population reduction over the war years. You presented NO contrary evidence. Why did you not present what you claim to have found?

My standard of evidence is no different, not one bit different, in no way different, for ANY felony trial. I have set the bar as low as possible. It is no greater than for a simple murder trial. It is sort of incredible that the most popular form of TV show since the demise of the Western has been police and lawyer dramas and yet people raised with this huge exposure seem to have no idea of the standards for a criminal trial. It is the same standard as for any crime where the sentence is one year or more.

Are you so detached from this common knowledge that you really think, really and truly think, I am setting an unusually high standard? Do you really believe that? If so, HOW can you be so ignorant of the requirements for a simple murder trial? I truly do not see how it is possible. Therefore I cannot find a simpler explanation than that you are a holohugger. Think crosshugger or treehugger.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Do you see land ownership any place in that definition? You do not therefore ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty.

Why is google's definition of "sovereignty" legitimate but its definition of "holocaust" isn't?  Both are anonymous and have no sources backing them up.

Are you majoring in Phys Ed? What college is ripping you off by not providing you the education you are paying for? Legitimacy is independent of source. Send me three credit hours in small bills.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Do you object to "the only good murder is a dead murderer"?

Uh, yeah, I do. A murderer who never kills again and attempts to alleviate the suffering he/she caused is far better than a murderer who is put to death.

In which reality is that the standard of justice? On top of that Zionists only seek to make live more miserable for their victims. Read haaretz.com and see for yourself. The latest is nine Palestinian children killed in a traffic accident and the Israeli social media filled with comments like, It should have been more, and, why were the injured helped?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are foot soldiers innocent from ignorance?

I could be wrong, but I thought low-ranking soldiers couldn't be charged with crimes for following orders because of the way the military command structure works.

Last I heard the standard of Nuremberg is, following orders is no defense. In fact if I remember it correctly you can find those words in the charter of the IMT.

This is not to say I endorse Nuremberg as I think the defendent should have some rights beyond merely hearing the proceedings in their own language. You know like being confronted by their accusers, call witnesses in their defense, that sort of thing. You know, the kinds of things that have been considered fair and reasonable in trials since the oldest records of trials some 4500+ years ago.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:

I haven't noticed much of a Jewish Lobby since it was proven that Bible-Thumpers and Tough Italian Guys could produce flicks (including the adult entertainment kind) as well as any... "Jewish" person.

I have, however, noticed an fanatically Pro-Israel lobby in certain parts of Congress. Probably the Executive Branch at certain points in history, but not a Jewish Lobby.

 

Then again... there is always Ben Bernanke.

"Spinning, literal imagery of Emmanuel Goldstein" comes to mind.

I don' t have any pictures but there is this guy named Edelson or some such who has dropped $20 million on Gingrich. He also finances criminal squattertowns in occupied Palestine. So without putting to fine a point on it, Edelson is a war criminal and hanging is too good for him. And Gingrich is being promoted by a war criminal. Clearly Edelson is a Zionist and the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Of course all the Republican candidates as well as Obama are zionists except maybe Ron Paul. In such a target rich environment there is nothing to do but sit back and wait for Romney to advocate self-determination for the Mormon people.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Kapkao

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

I haven't noticed much of a Jewish Lobby since it was proven that Bible-Thumpers and Tough Italian Guys could produce flicks (including the adult entertainment kind) as well as any... "Jewish" person.

I have, however, noticed an fanatically Pro-Israel lobby in certain parts of Congress. Probably the Executive Branch at certain points in history, but not a Jewish Lobby.

 

Then again... there is always Ben Bernanke.

"Spinning, literal imagery of Emmanuel Goldstein" comes to mind.

I don' t have any pictures but there is this guy named Edelson or some such who has dropped $20 million on Gingrich. He also finances criminal squattertowns in occupied Palestine. So without putting to fine a point on it, Edelson is a war criminal and hanging is too good for him. And Gingrich is being promoted by a war criminal. Clearly Edelson is a Zionist and the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Of course all the Republican candidates as well as Obama are zionists except maybe Ron Paul. In such a target rich environment there is nothing to do but sit back and wait for Romney to advocate self-determination for the Mormon people.

 

I don't know about all that... but in Europe and Early America it was known there are two distinct ways to hang somone. One is with a particularly long noose that snaps the neck on the moment execution. I suspect that the "long noose" variant was used as Saddam's sentence was carried out.

His people really didn't care for him, but apparently wanted him out of the way ASAP.

 

The other... is with a short noose. A short noose kills by strangulation... apparently, an individual so sentenced kicks about while (usually) trying to gasp for air. Eventually, they lose consciousness and stop moving.

'Garrote via poisonous wasp sting in neck' might have the desired effect... of course, it too is a particularly quick killer without emergency medical attention.

Box Jellyfish Sting or death via Gas Gangrene would probably give the hurt that keeps on hurting. There's also the nonlethal Mouse Spider and Bullet Ant.

There's also the good-old-fashioned broken kneecap. I don't think there is a person in the world that sort of punishment couldn't break. Really easy to do, as well. Just use a baseball bat and hit as hard as possible. As long as an artery does not rupture... the person gets to live. They aren't going to escape from prison, but they will live.

Alas, my ugly, inner utilitarian is showing again. /bow

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3684
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:  I don't

Kapkao wrote:

 


 

I don't know about all that... but in Europe and Early America it was known there are two distinct ways to hang somone. One is with a particularly long noose that snaps the neck on the moment execution. I suspect that the "long noose" variant was used as Saddam's sentence was carried out.

 

 

The other... is with a short noose. A short noose kills by strangulation... apparently, an individual so sentenced kicks about while (usually) trying to gasp for air. Eventually, they lose consciousness and stop moving.

  I think you mean "long drop"  which sometimes rips a persons head off when they reach the bottom of their fall due to the acceleration of a long drop. 

 Strangulation versus fractured neck can be accomplished simply by shifting the noose into one of two different positions.  If the noose is positioned so that the row of knots are placed behind the victims head then the pressure of the rope pushes their head  forward so that pressure applied across the front of the neck crushes the soft tissue and strangles the victim.

 If the knots are placed to one side of the victims head then the pressure of the rope will apply force unequally to one side of the neck forcing it beyond its normal range of motion and snapping the bones and severing the spinal cord.

 

   Learning this stuff is how I earned my "capital punishment" badge when I was in the Boy Scouts.

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If I had

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If I had repeated the word canvas in describing the wings I would be asking after the future defintion of canvas. Human powered flight has been demonstrated using materials with strength to weight ratios literally undreamed of a century ago. Again you cannot attach an unstated Y to the X premise.

Stating they are not does not make a fact. Hidden defintions do not apply. Ys and Zs and the rest do not apply. The words can only have the current accepted meanings. They are mutually exclusive by the commonly accepted meanings of the words.

While I honestly don't understand your objections, I'm going to assume my statements were flawed and stop trying to defend them.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I ONLY addressed the absence of evidence for 6 million in 1945 or absence of a population reduction over the war years. You presented NO contrary evidence. Why did you not present what you claim to have found?

I was referring to what Atheistextremist cited, which you denied counted as legitimate evidence.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My standard of evidence is no different, not one bit different, in no way different, for ANY felony trial. I have set the bar as low as possible. It is no greater than for a simple murder trial. It is sort of incredible that the most popular form of TV show since the demise of the Western has been police and lawyer dramas and yet people raised with this huge exposure seem to have no idea of the standards for a criminal trial. It is the same standard as for any crime where the sentence is one year or more.

Are you so detached from this common knowledge that you really think, really and truly think, I am setting an unusually high standard? Do you really believe that? If so, HOW can you be so ignorant of the requirements for a simple murder trial? I truly do not see how it is possible. Therefore I cannot find a simpler explanation than that you are a holohugger. Think crosshugger or treehugger.

Well, I wasn't aware that the standards for establishing the accuracy of a historical event are the same as those for establishing guilt in a felony trial. Furthermore, I watch very little tv and have never taken any classes in law or criminal justice. So yes, I am ignorant of the requirements for a murder trial.

Yes, I really do think your standard is unusually high: you seem to want far more evidence to establish the accuracy of the Holocaust than you want for other historical events. Still, I can't know for sure until I look at more of the Holocaust evidence myself.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are you majoring in Phys Ed? What college is ripping you off by not providing you the education you are paying for? Legitimacy is independent of source. Send me three credit hours in small bills.

Then why did you insult Atheistextremist merely for providing anonymous sources?  Perhaps you should apologize to him.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

...

I don' t have any pictures but there is this guy named Edelson or some such who has dropped $20 million on Gingrich. He also finances criminal squattertowns in occupied Palestine. So without putting to fine a point on it, Edelson is a war criminal and hanging is too good for him. And Gingrich is being promoted by a war criminal. Clearly Edelson is a Zionist and the only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Of course all the Republican candidates as well as Obama are zionists except maybe Ron Paul. In such a target rich environment there is nothing to do but sit back and wait for Romney to advocate self-determination for the Mormon people.

 

I don't know about all that...

Its a fact. It is all over Haaretz.com although spelled Adelson not with an E now that I check.

Quote:
but in Europe and Early America it was known there are two distinct ways to hang somone. One is with a particularly long noose that snaps the neck on the moment execution. I suspect that the "long noose" variant was used as Saddam's sentence was carried out.

His people really didn't care for him, but apparently wanted him out of the way ASAP.

Hussein got the short rope just like at Nuremberg. A cellphone video made it to the internet. A small invitation only mob even started sticking him with knives as he was choking. Yes someone wanted him gone. US State was not only officially shocked but appeared to be genuinely shocked.

Quote:
The other... is with a short noose. A short noose kills by strangulation... apparently, an individual so sentenced kicks about while (usually) trying to gasp for air. Eventually, they lose consciousness and stop moving.

'Garrote via poisonous wasp sting in neck' might have the desired effect... of course, it too is a particularly quick killer without emergency medical attention.

Box Jellyfish Sting or death via Gas Gangrene would probably give the hurt that keeps on hurting. There's also the nonlethal Mouse Spider and Bullet Ant.

There's also the good-old-fashioned broken kneecap. I don't think there is a person in the world that sort of punishment couldn't break. Really easy to do, as well. Just use a baseball bat and hit as hard as possible. As long as an artery does not rupture... the person gets to live. They aren't going to escape from prison, but they will live.

Alas, my ugly, inner utilitarian is showing again. /bow

From what I have read the way to execute the hard way would be with bone cancer. If we can give it to rats we should be able to give it to people. Then there is always I Love Lucy reruns and reading my posts.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
I don't know about all that... but in Europe and Early America it was known there are two distinct ways to hang somone. One is with a particularly long noose that snaps the neck on the moment execution. I suspect that the "long noose" variant was used as Saddam's sentence was carried out.

The other... is with a short noose. A short noose kills by strangulation... apparently, an individual so sentenced kicks about while (usually) trying to gasp for air. Eventually, they lose consciousness and stop moving.

I think you mean "long drop"  which sometimes rips a persons head off when they reach the bottom of their fall due to the acceleration of a long drop. 

 Strangulation versus fractured neck can be accomplished simply by shifting the noose into one of two different positions.  If the noose is positioned so that the row of knots are placed behind the victims head then the pressure of the rope pushes their head  forward so that pressure applied across the front of the neck crushes the soft tissue and strangles the victim.

 If the knots are placed to one side of the victims head then the pressure of the rope will apply force unequally to one side of the neck forcing it beyond its normal range of motion and snapping the bones and severing the spinal cord.

   Learning this stuff is how I earned my "capital punishment" badge when I was in the Boy Scouts.

If I might intrude, knots in the rear causes the rope to press directly on the carotid and jugular resulting in rapid unconsciousness. Towards the front causes the head to bend back and draws the arteries deep into the neck preventing them from being blocked.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If I had repeated the word canvas in describing the wings I would be asking after the future defintion of canvas. Human powered flight has been demonstrated using materials with strength to weight ratios literally undreamed of a century ago. Again you cannot attach an unstated Y to the X premise.

Stating they are not does not make a fact. Hidden defintions do not apply. Ys and Zs and the rest do not apply. The words can only have the current accepted meanings. They are mutually exclusive by the commonly accepted meanings of the words.

While I honestly don't understand your objections, I'm going to assume my statements were flawed and stop trying to defend them.

The simplest way to say it is that unstated assumptions will always bite you in the ass.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I ONLY addressed the absence of evidence for 6 million in 1945 or absence of a population reduction over the war years. You presented NO contrary evidence. Why did you not present what you claim to have found?

I was referring to what Atheistextremist cited, which you denied counted as legitimate evidence.

I don't recall what those were. I do not recall anything establishing the world pop reduction by 6M in 1945. That is the only fact in need of evidence.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My standard of evidence is no different, not one bit different, in no way different, for ANY felony trial. I have set the bar as low as possible. It is no greater than for a simple murder trial. It is sort of incredible that the most popular form of TV show since the demise of the Western has been police and lawyer dramas and yet people raised with this huge exposure seem to have no idea of the standards for a criminal trial. It is the same standard as for any crime where the sentence is one year or more.

Are you so detached from this common knowledge that you really think, really and truly think, I am setting an unusually high standard? Do you really believe that? If so, HOW can you be so ignorant of the requirements for a simple murder trial? I truly do not see how it is possible. Therefore I cannot find a simpler explanation than that you are a holohugger. Think crosshugger or treehugger.

Well, I wasn't aware that the standards for establishing the accuracy of a historical event are the same as those for establishing guilt in a felony trial. Furthermore, I watch very little tv and have never taken any classes in law or criminal justice. So yes, I am ignorant of the requirements for a murder trial.

Everything is history once it has happened. I expect everyone to have a problem with convicting people of murder without evidence anyone has been murdered. Back during Vietnam there were violent antiwar demonstrations. I a few of them demonstrators were killed. The demonstration may be an historical fact. That does not establish a murder took place.

Historical events are amusing things. We know at one time the largest library in the world was at Alexandria. We also "know" from history that it was "destroyed" by Julius Caesar, by the Christians, and by some Muslim conqueror. We also know no one mentioned these three destructions when they occurred. At some point in history the lighthouse at Alexandria collapsed. There is no surviving mention of the event nor a suggestion that there was once a mention that did not survive.

Those were the first that came to mind. History has lots of examples like those. The one most appropriate to this website is the one I have been working on for the last few months. www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html 

Quote:
Yes, I really do think your standard is unusually high: you seem to want far more evidence to establish the accuracy of the Holocaust than you want for other historical events. Still, I can't know for sure until I look at more of the Holocaust evidence myself.

Why do you think the standard of evidence for a murder trial is too high when the charge is 6M murders? If the news reports a man died in an auto accident I will not bother with more than a few seconds of footage of the wrecked car. If the news reports 1000 people died in an auto accident I think it reasonable to expect more than a few seconds of a single car wrapped around a tree. Why don't you?

The greater the crime the lesser the evidence?

The essense of the Big Lie plays upon people being essentially honest. People can understand small lies because they tell them. People cannot image telling huge lies. The consequences of being discovered if nothing else makes telling a Big Lie incredible. Therefore people assume the greater the lie the more likely it is to be true. That is what you are doing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence not vice versa.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Are you majoring in Phys Ed? What college is ripping you off by not providing you the education you are paying for? Legitimacy is independent of source. Send me three credit hours in small bills.

Then why did you insult Atheistextremist merely for providing anonymous sources?  Perhaps you should apologize to him.

Of what value are anonymous sources? Do you accept anonymous sources? Is there anything you won't believe?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I don't

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I don't recall what those were.

Posts number 97, 107, and 110 in the "Bringing Jobs Back to America" thread have the sources I'm referring to.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Everything is history once it has happened. I expect everyone to have a problem with convicting people of murder without evidence anyone has been murdered. Back during Vietnam there were violent antiwar demonstrations. In a few of them demonstrators were killed. The demonstration may be an historical fact. That does not establish a murder took place.

Why do you think the standard of evidence for a murder trial is too high when the charge is 6M murders? If the news reports a man died in an auto accident I will not bother with more than a few seconds of footage of the wrecked car. If the news reports 1000 people died in an auto accident I think it reasonable to expect more than a few seconds of a single car wrapped around a tree. Why don't you?

So were demonstrators killed or not?  First you state that people were killed in violent antiwar demonstrations, and then you state that no murders took place--am I correct in assuming that there is a substantial difference between "killed" and "murdered"?

If the people killed in the Holocaust are considered "murdered", then are the people killed on D-Day also considered such?

I do expect more--I just happen to think that all the photos and documents detailing the Holocaust actually count as "more".

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Of what value are anonymous sources? Do you accept anonymous sources? Is there anything you won't believe?

Well, according to you, they are sufficient for establishing the definition of "sovereignty".

Yes, I don't believe that gods are real.

What about those death threats you mentioned, am I just supposed to take your word for it?  Do you expect me to believe that they happened even though you've provided no evidence for them whatsoever?