Just wondering
Russell Ranshaw
etc. Why did the Nazis not mix Jews with the blacks, gays, deformed,
catholics, which they also exterminated?
--
In 1919 Joseph Schumpteter described ancient Rome in a
way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2002.
"There was no corner of the known world where some
interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual
attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those
of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies
would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to
contrive such an interest -- why, then it was the national
honor that had been insulted. The fight was always
invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being
attacked by evil-minded neighbours...The whole world was
pervaded by a host of enemies, it was manifestly Rome's
duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs."
Cindy S.
"Russell Ranshaw" <rran...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:LLVw9.1517$L47.2...@read2.cgocable.net...
> In all the Holocaust stories we hear about groups of Jews in ghettos,
camps,
> etc. Why did the Nazis not mix Jews with the blacks, gays, deformed,
> catholics, which they also exterminated?
Who said they didn't?
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Strider
camps,
> etc. Why did the Nazis not mix Jews with the blacks, gays, deformed,
> catholics, which they also exterminated?
That is exactly what they did. Auschwitz contained Poles, gypsies, gays,
german criminals, and many,many, Russians! Now according to Zionists they
are all jews!
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
<rran...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>In all the Holocaust stories we hear about groups of Jews in ghettos, camps,
>etc. Why did the Nazis not mix Jews with the blacks, gays, deformed,
>catholics, which they also exterminated?
>
It is 'anti-semitic' to even suggest that anyone other than jews
suffered in the holocaust.
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
> One more thing Micky Schwarzkopfberg, you were the one who threatened
>Fformby-Smythe first, before there was any talk of meeting in Mexico and
>the like. You make it sound as though he should now travel, when in
>reality you are the one who threatened him first. So why don't you find
>him? Certainly you have the means to do so if you really wanted to,
>don't you? Why should he travel? You're the one who issued the threat.
>Surely with your "associates" and "contacts" you could find him and
>follow through on your threat, am I correct? What I am saying is that
>since you are the KeyBoard Special Operations Marine who initially
>issued the threat, it is your duty to find him and not vice versa. You
>know his name and the city he lives in. And he's not meeting you in
>Mexico, that sounds fishy.
>
The silence is, predictably, deafening.
Strider
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe <rene...@anglicam.org> wrote in message
news:3dc5544d...@news.onetel.net.uk...
AND PUNISHABLE BY BEING ROASTED OVER A CHARCOAL FIRE UNTIL YOUR BALLS FALL
OF!