Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: a question for Jew haters

10 views
Skip to first unread message

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 4:03:40 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 19, 10:23 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. both practice food
> > taboos to segregate themselves,

Horsedoovers.

The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question
that some of the dietary laws have beneficial health effects;
moreover, the health benefits derived from kashrut were not made
obsolete by refrigeration. For one example, there's evidence that
eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no
modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the
kosher law of eating them separately. For another, the laws regarding
kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and
slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.

Some have suggested that the prohibitions are instead derived from
environmental considerations. But these are not reasons that come
from Jewish tradition.

The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah
commands it. The Torah does not specify a reason for kashrut, and for
a traditional Jew, no other reason is necessary. Obedience to G-d is
shown by observing the laws, even though the reason is not known.

Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests the dietary laws are designed as a
call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong,
good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very
important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat
ingrains that kind of self control, requiring one to learn to control
even the most basic, primal instincts.

> >the Muslims add stronger clothing
> > taboos for their women (prevents assimilation).
> > The Muslim strategy is to out-reproduce and then create an islamic
> > legal systems that favours muslims.
>
> > The Jewish stratagy is to atomise and minoritise Whites since they do
> > not have the abillity to do that through numbers.

Really? These Jews are NOT "White"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates_in_Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates_in_Physics

These Jews are NOT "White"?

Leonard Baskin, Judy Chicago, Elaine de Kooning, Henry Dreyfuss, Jacob
Epstein, Milton Glaser, Rube Goldberg, Lee Krasner, Roy Lichtenstein,
Peter Max, Mark Rothko, George Segal, ETC.

And these Jews are NOT "White"?

Irwin Allen, James L. Brooks, Jerry Bruckheimer, Paddy Chayefsky,
David Cronenberg, Larry David, Robert Evans, Max Fleischer, Victor
Fleming, Akiva Goldsman, Seth Green, Lawrence Kasdan, Jeffrey
Katzenberg, Marta Kauffman, Stanley Kubrick, Norman Lear, Bill
Maher, Herman J. Mankiewicz, Sydney Pollack, Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner,
Adam Sandler, David O. Selznick, Rod Serling, Aaron Sorkin, Robert
Wise, Harry Cohn, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Warner Brothers,
Adolph Zukor, film mogul and founder of Famous Players and later
Paramount Pictures

Look at these photos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Ford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Bacall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Silverstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Phoenix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Michelle_Gellar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soleil_Moon_Frye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gyllenhaal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Hudson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Tisdale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanith_Belbin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Abdul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Arquette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldie_Hawn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Lipton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Broderick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Landon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Hannah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Lee_Curtis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Irving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Douglas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Kudrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_(singer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Midler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spiner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Koenig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shatner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Yelchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wilder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Louis-Dreyfus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Couric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Penn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Seymour_(actress)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianna_Margulies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Messing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyra_Sedgwick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Wyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Koppel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duchovny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suze_Orman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Walters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinah_Shore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%C3%A9n_Amaro,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Davis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Greenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Kapler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Koufax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schoeneweis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Newman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Cohen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Galler-Rabinowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Gregory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Hughes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Slutskaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gershwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Garfunkel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Previn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rodgers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Lee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fleischer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fleischer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Rickover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marx_Brothers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

Do any of these Jews NOT look "White"? (Excluding Rashida Jones,
Yaphet Kotto, Lisa Bonet, etc)

> > You'll usually find a a high proprtion of Jews writing your history,
> > movie scripts, etc.

"Etc" here meaning stuff like inventing the polio vaccine, genetic
engineering, the nuclear chain reactor, virtual reality,
chemotherapy,
the kidney dialysis machine, the defibrillator, the pacemaker,
vaccination against the Hepatitis B virus, the vaccinating needle,
laser technology, sound movies, videotape, color TV, holography,
monotheism, psychoanalysis, the Theory of Relativity, the Weekend
(Aharon Lopez), Google, the fax machine, the microphone, the
gramophone, the microprocessing chip, optical fiber cable, cellular
technology, drip irrigation, the pager, the walkie-talkie, high-
vacuum electron tubes, the incandescent lamp, Kodachrome film, the
adding machine, stainless steel, advanced MRI, and G0d.

> > The proportions are staggering.

Jews currently comprise approximately 0.25% of the world’s population,
and less than 2% of the American population. Even so, at least 178
Jews have earned the Nobel Prize -- that comprises 23% of all
recipients worldwide, and 37% of all American recipients -- between
1901 and 2008. In the fields of chemistry, economics, medicine, and
physics, Jewish Nobel laureates comprise 27% (world) and 40%
(American) of awards earned in the same period.

> > who want everyone to live under Islamic law and
> > > for non Muslims to pay a tax? I'd say that's a whole lot worse than the Jews
> > > which brings me to another question: Why do anti Semites let islamofacists
> > > off the hock for doing far worse things than Israel or the Jews?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > They generally don't.

They generally do.

> >they merely point out jewish/zionist
> > hypcrissy.

QED.

> > Israel for the Jews, Whites can't have a homeland.
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, I wonder what drugs you're abusing?

Just one: ignorant bigotry.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 5:30:03 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
> If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
> with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
> followers of competing religious cults (which being
> exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
> of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
> there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....

[snip stream-of-conscious wambling]

Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.

Deborah

NEMO

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 6:38:32 PM12/19/10
to
..................Deborah, _ G O D _ is a dumbass & maybe as dumb as
MooseShit.

Dug

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 7:31:33 PM12/19/10
to
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

[snip stream-of-conscious wambling]

Deborah

*************************
Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.

And what kind of narcisstic wanker would take G-D as his
on-line 'nym?


Eunometic

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 7:43:33 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:23 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims.  both practice food
> > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> Horsedoovers.
>
> The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.


Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effect
is simple: it's a food taboo
of piffling value, whose biggest effects is to circumscibe and
segregate Jews from Gentiles.


> There is no question
> that some of the dietary laws have beneficial health effects;

Insignificant and probably has some negative effects.


> > > The Jewish stratagy is to atomise and minoritise Whites since they do
> > > not have the abillity to do that through numbers.

SNIP


> Really? These Jews are NOT "White"?
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates...


>
> These Jews are NOT "White"?
>

They are about 50% White. 1 in 200 births/marriages was to
gentiles per generation over the past 1000 years or so which gives
us a 50%-60% semitic/european look.

If you look closely you can still see semitic features.


> Leonard Baskin, Judy Chicago, Elaine de Kooning, Henry Dreyfuss, Jacob
> Epstein, Milton Glaser,  Rube Goldberg, Lee Krasner, Roy Lichtenstein,
> Peter Max, Mark Rothko, George Segal, ETC.

The list of 'famous Jews' is extensive.

And there you have it: their abillity to influence, to influence.


> And these Jews are NOT "White"?

As I said they still look, generally, a little odd.

>
> Irwin Allen, James L. Brooks, Jerry Bruckheimer, Paddy Chayefsky,
> David Cronenberg, Larry David, Robert Evans, Max Fleischer, Victor
> Fleming, Akiva Goldsman, Seth Green, Lawrence Kasdan, Jeffrey
> Katzenberg, Marta Kauffman,  Stanley Kubrick, Norman Lear,  Bill
> Maher, Herman J. Mankiewicz, Sydney Pollack, Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner,
> Adam Sandler,  David O. Selznick, Rod Serling, Aaron Sorkin, Robert
> Wise, Harry Cohn, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Warner Brothers,
> Adolph Zukor, film mogul and founder of Famous Players and later
> Paramount Pictures
>
> Look at these photos:
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kayehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Fordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Bacallhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Silverstonehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Phoenixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Michelle_Gellarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soleil_Moon_Fryehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gyllenhaalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Hudsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Tisdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanith_Belbinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Abdulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Arquettehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldie_Hawnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Liptonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Broderickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Landonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Hannahhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Lee_Curtishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Irvinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Douglashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Kudrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_(singer)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Joneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bette_Midlerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Koenighttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shatnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Yelchinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wilderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stonehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Louis-Dreyfushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Courichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Pennhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Frankenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Seymour_(actress)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianna_Margulieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Messinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyra_Sedgwickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Wylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Koppelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duchovnyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suze_Ormanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewarthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Waltershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinah_Shorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Saganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%C3%A9n_Amaro,_Jr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Davishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Greenberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Kaplerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Koufaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schoeneweishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Newmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Cohenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Galler-Rabinowitzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Gregoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Hugheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Slutskayahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gershwinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Garfunkelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Previnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rodgershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Leehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fleischerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fleischerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Rickoverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marx_Brothershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges


>
> Do any of these Jews NOT look "White"? (Excluding Rashida Jones,
> Yaphet Kotto, Lisa Bonet, etc)
>
> > > You'll usually find a  a high proprtion of Jews writing your history,
> > > movie scripts, etc.
>
> "Etc" here meaning stuff like inventing the polio vaccine, genetic
> engineering, the nuclear chain reactor, virtual reality,
> chemotherapy,

All things gentiles were comming up with at the same time. One can
name gentiles involved in these activities as well.


>
> > > The proportions are staggering.
>
> Jews currently comprise approximately 0.25% of the world’s population,
> and less than 2% of the American population. Even so, at least 178
> Jews have earned the Nobel Prize --

Jews corrosive effects are equally disproportionatly large

Mo

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 7:51:09 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 20, 12:31 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>
> > If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
> > with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
> > followers of competing religious cults (which being
> > exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
> > of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
> > there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....
>
> [snip stream-of-conscious wambling]
>
> Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.
>
> Deborah
>
> *************************
> Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.

Why not, Dug? All Ms. Sharavi has ever shown us on this newsgroup is
incoherent rancour and low-level invective, and a truly staggering
degree of credulity. She is a True Believer in the Zionist project;
sixty years ago she would have been a devout Stalinist, and forty
years ago she would have been one of the madder Maoists.

This writer (i.e., moi) is on "Deb's bad side", and she is absolutely
incapable of doing anything about it. Unless, of course, she were to
change the habit of a lifetime and engage in serious debate.

But that ain't gonna happen.

redux

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 8:01:46 PM12/19/10
to
In article <e774d1a4-540a-4ad5...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Mo <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 20, 12:31=A0pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
>> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>>
>> > If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
>> > with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
>> > followers of competing religious cults (which being
>> > exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
>> > of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
>> > there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....
>>
>> [snip stream-of-conscious wambling]
>>
>> Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>> *************************
>> Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.

Quote:

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq."

-- Deputy Offense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - a ZioNazi


[Zionism, NWO, Iraq, Saddam, terror, genocide, Illuminati,
war, military, biological]

Quote:

"Sometimes the truth is so precious
it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."

-- Offense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld


>Why not, Dug? All Ms. Sharavi has ever shown us on this newsgroup is
>incoherent rancour and low-level invective, and a truly staggering
>degree of credulity. She is a True Believer in the Zionist project;
>sixty years ago she would have been a devout Stalinist, and forty
>years ago she would have been one of the madder Maoists.
>
>This writer (i.e., moi) is on "Deb's bad side", and she is absolutely
>incapable of doing anything about it. Unless, of course, she were to
>change the habit of a lifetime and engage in serious debate.
>
>But that ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> And what kind of narcisstic wanker would take G-D as his
>> on-line 'nym?

Quote:

"We need a program of psychosurgery and
political control of our society. The purpose is
physical control of the mind. Everyone who
deviates from the given norm can be surgically
mutilated.

The individual may think that the most important
reality is his own existence, but this is only his
personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.

Man does not have the right to develop his own
mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great
appeal. We must electrically control the brain.
Some day armies and generals will be controlled
by electrical stimulation of the brain."

-- Dr. Jose Delgado (MKULTRA experimenter who
demonstrated a radio-controlled bull on CNN in 1985)
Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University
Medical School.
Congressional Record No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974

DThomas

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 9:04:29 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 19, 3:29 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:18 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:09220644-d1a4-4fc9...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Dec 19, 6:55 am, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > They generally don't.  they merely point out jewish/zionist
> > > hypcrissy.  Israel for the Jews, Whites can't have a homeland.
>
> > White (caucasian) is genetic, while being a Jew is not.  There are
> > Caucasian Jews, Black Jews, Oriental Jews, etc. Once can convert from
> > one religion to another as religion is ideology, though one cannot
> > change their genetics.
>
> In "theory" but not in practice, the barriers to conversion are high:
> food taboos, dress taboos, circumcision and a degree of community
> disdain.  

And you know this....how? Do you attend shul on a regular basis? Can
you tell the difference between a born Jew and a Jew by choice? Do you
have any idea how integral Jews by choice are to their shuls?

> Plus it's not that attractive a religion despite the
> hollywood script writers tyring to make it 'cool'.  It is clearly
> 'tribal' in basis.  

In some respects. In other respects, it's not.

> Genetically "Jews" (Ashkenazi) are still 60% of
> middle eastern herritage as evidenced by Y-chromosome studies.
> Generally the pattern shows Jewish men migrating and then a shutoff
> soon after.  But yes they are 'mulitracial' to a degree.

Yaphet Kotto is a Jew. Lisa Bonet is a Jew. Rashida Jones is a Jew.
>
> Either way, it doesn't matter how "Jews" define themselves racially/
> religiously or both.   Their intention towards the genetically
> different and genetically far more homogenous gentiles they live
> amongst is clear.  They wish to see therm cultually and racially
> diluted.  They are, in effect hostile.

"Homogenous gentiles"?

> > So convert, and you can have a homeland.
>
> Lip service.  Jew = Hebrew.  They pretend to be a religion though
> they've recently had to 'open up' more.

And you know this.....how? From regular trips to shul on your home
planet?

Deborah

DThomas

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 9:04:53 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 19, 3:38 pm, NEMO <brianlambsbig...@excite.com> wrote:
> ..................Deborah, _ G O D _ is a dumbass & maybe as dumb as
> MooseShit.

That's a big fat DUH.

Deborah

DThomas

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 9:12:19 PM12/19/10
to
On Dec 19, 4:31 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

The wanker who posted the above, of course.

Deborah

NEMO

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 9:41:35 PM12/19/10
to
............... _ G O D _ , "....<snip>....redundant crap has been
carefully removed........... ", too bad you didn't include yourself,
twerp!

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 9:41:46 PM12/19/10
to
> > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. both practice food
> > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Horsedoovers.
>
> > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.

[Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
unqualified, and unfounded opinion]

> Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effect
> is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest effects is to
>circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.

As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
(kashrut) are:

1) healthy

2) designed as a call to holiness; the ability to distinguish between


right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the
profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can

and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, even of the most
basic, primal instincts.

3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.

> > There is no question
> > that some of the dietary laws have beneficial health effects;
>
> Insignificant and probably has some negative effects.

Name one -- just one -- which has negative effects.

> > > > The Jewish stratagy is to atomise and minoritise Whites since they do
> > > > not have the abillity to do that through numbers.
> SNIP
> > Really? These Jews are NOT "White"?
>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Laureates......


>
> > These Jews are NOT "White"?
>
> They are about 50% White.

They all look about 100% White.

> If you look closely you can still see semitic features.

Which are....what, exactly? Features like those of


>
> > Leonard Baskin, Judy Chicago, Elaine de Kooning, Henry Dreyfuss, Jacob
> > Epstein, Milton Glaser, Rube Goldberg, Lee Krasner, Roy Lichtenstein,
> > Peter Max, Mark Rothko, George Segal, ETC.
>
> The list of 'famous Jews' is extensive.
> And there you have it: their abillity to influence, to influence.

The list of famous Jews is extensive due to their ability to ACHIEVE
ACHIEVE ACHIEVE .


>
> > And these Jews are NOT "White"?
>
> As I said they still look, generally, a little odd.

These Jews look "a little odd"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_&_Garfunkel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson

Which of the Jews listed above "look odd".

> > Irwin Allen, James L. Brooks, Jerry Bruckheimer, Paddy Chayefsky,
> > David Cronenberg, Larry David, Robert Evans, Max Fleischer, Victor
> > Fleming, Akiva Goldsman, Seth Green, Lawrence Kasdan, Jeffrey
> > Katzenberg, Marta Kauffman, Stanley Kubrick, Norman Lear, Bill
> > Maher, Herman J. Mankiewicz, Sydney Pollack, Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner,
> > Adam Sandler, David O. Selznick, Rod Serling, Aaron Sorkin, Robert
> > Wise, Harry Cohn, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Warner Brothers,
> > Adolph Zukor, film mogul and founder of Famous Players and later
> > Paramount Pictures
>
> > Look at these photos:

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kayehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Large snippage by "Eurometic" restored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

> > Do any of these Jews NOT look "White"? (Excluding Rashida Jones,
> > Yaphet Kotto, Lisa Bonet, etc)

No response.

> > > > You'll usually find a a high proprtion of Jews writing your history,
> > > > movie scripts, etc.
>
> > "Etc" here meaning stuff like inventing the polio vaccine, genetic
> > engineering, the nuclear chain reactor, virtual reality,
> > chemotherapy,

More snippage by "Eurometic" restored:

the kidney dialysis machine, the defibrillator, the pacemaker,
vaccination against the Hepatitis B virus, the vaccinating needle,
laser technology, sound movies, videotape, color TV, holography,
monotheism, psychoanalysis, the Theory of Relativity, the Weekend
(Aharon Lopez), Google, the fax machine, the microphone, the
gramophone, the microprocessing chip, optical fiber cable, cellular
technology, drip irrigation, the pager, the walkie-talkie, high-
vacuum electron tubes, the incandescent lamp, Kodachrome film, the
adding machine, stainless steel, advanced MRI, and G0d.

> All things gentiles were comming up with at the same time.

Oh they were, were they? Who were they who were "comming up with at
the same time"?

>One can name gentiles involved in these activities as well.

One can NAME gentiles "involved in these activities" -- AFTER Jews
invented the above "activities".

> > > > The proportions are staggering.
>
> > Jews currently comprise approximately 0.25% of the world’s population,
> > and less than 2% of the American population. Even so, at least 178
> > Jews have earned the Nobel Prize --

More snippage by Eurometic restored:

-- that comprises 23% of all
recipients worldwide, and 37% of all American recipients -- between
1901 and 2008. In the fields of chemistry, economics, medicine, and
physics, Jewish Nobel laureates comprise 27% (world) and 40%
(American) of awards earned in the same period.

> Jews corrosive effects are equally disproportionatly large

And just where would you be without those "corrosive effects" -- or
"activities" --listed above?

Your hatred is far more corrosive than any negative fantasy you may
have about Jews.

Deborah

Dug

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 11:33:05 PM12/19/10
to
"Mo" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e774d1a4-540a-4ad5...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 20, 12:31 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>
> > If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
> > with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
> > followers of competing religious cults (which being
> > exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
> > of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
> > there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....
>
> [snip stream-of-conscious wambling]
>
> Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.
>
> Deborah
>
> *************************
> Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.

Why not, Dug? All Ms. Sharavi has ever shown us on this newsgroup is
incoherent rancour and low-level invective, and a truly staggering
degree of credulity. She is a True Believer in the Zionist project;
sixty years ago she would have been a devout Stalinist, and forty
years ago she would have been one of the madder Maoists.

*************************
I trust her sources a lot more than her opponents. After all
Al Jazeera, the Palestinian Times, Stormfront and Iranian media outlets
mostly post nothing more than antisemitic garbage and islamic
propaganda.

How is she supposed to respond to thinly disguised antisemites
who call her "zionazi"? With florid, complimentary prose?

She supports Israel, too many of her opponents, incl. Hezbollah,
Hamas and Fata want to see Israel *completely* destroyed.


This writer (i.e., moi) is on "Deb's bad side", and she is absolutely
incapable of doing anything about it. Unless, of course, she were to
change the habit of a lifetime and engage in serious debate.

*************************
She regularly spanks her opponents here. I suppose you've been
one of her victims.


Back in Black

unread,
Dec 19, 2010, 11:45:37 PM12/19/10
to
In article <82312ffc-2d54-4fcb-95f3-7fb9bd823481@
22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, dsha...@hotmail.com says...

> "Etc" here meaning stuff like inventing the polio vaccine,

> genetic engineering (nope)

> the nuclear chain reactor (yes)

> virtual reality (nope)

> chemotherapy (deadly and useless, but nope)

> the kidney dialysis machine (too lazy to check)

> the defibrillator (nope)

> the pacemaker (too lazy to check)

> vaccination against the Hepatitis B virus (too lazy to check)

> the vaccinating needle (nope)

> laser technology (nope)

> sound movies (too lazy to check)

> videotape (nazi audio tape improved)

> color TV (nope)

> holography (nope)

> monotheism (nope)

> psychoanalysis (lol)

> Theory of Relativity (useless)

> the Weekend (nope)

> (Aharon Lopez) (too lazy to check)

> Google (is a company not an invention)

> fax machine

> the microphone, the
> gramophone, the microprocessing chip, optical fiber cable, cellular
> technology, drip irrigation, the pager, the walkie-talkie, high-
> vacuum electron tubes, the incandescent lamp, Kodachrome film, the
> adding machine, stainless steel, advanced MRI, and G0d.

Nope, just by looking at the rest.

>
>
>


Mo

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 12:10:34 AM12/20/10
to
On Dec 20, 4:33 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
> "Mo" <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:e774d1a4-540a-4ad5...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 12:31 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>
> > > If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
> > > with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
> > > followers of competing religious cults (which being
> > > exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
> > > of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
> > > there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....
>
> > [snip stream-of-conscious wambling]
>
> > Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.
>
> > Deborah
>
> > *************************
> > Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.
>
> Why not, Dug? All Ms. Sharavi has ever shown us on this newsgroup is
> incoherent rancour and low-level invective, and a truly staggering
> degree of credulity. She is a True Believer in the Zionist project;
> sixty years ago she would have been a devout Stalinist, and forty
> years ago she would have been one of the madder Maoists.
>
> *************************
> I trust her sources a lot more than her opponents. After all
> Al Jazeera, the Palestinian Times, Stormfront

Good one, Doug! Thought you could slip that one past everyone, did
you? Stormfront is a Nazi publication, which makes it totally
different to Al Jazeera and the Palestinian Times. Are you trying to
besmirch the opposition to Israel by making false, invidious
comparisons? Yes, you are, you silly fellow!

>
> and Iranian media outlets
> mostly post nothing more than antisemitic garbage and islamic
> propaganda.

You obviously have not read any of the above sites---although you do
post like a Stormfront regular. But you clearly haven't read or
listened to Al Jazeera or any Iranian outlets. In fact, I'd be
surprised if you did anything other than watch Fox News, with your
mouth open.

>
> How is she supposed to respond to thinly disguised antisemites

Oh, that's right! Opposition to the rogue Israeli regime makes one an
antisemite, in the same way that opposition to the Zimbabwe regime
makes one a Ku Klux Klan member. Your logic is impeccable, Dug. Why
don't you apply for a post as a professor of logic somewhere?

>
> who call her "zionazi"? With florid, complimentary prose?

Her prose is florid. It's just not clever, or well written.

>
> She supports Israel,

Wrong. She supports Israeli crimes, no matter how brutal. She has
never shown the slightest compassion at all for the victims of Israeli
depradations. Mind you, I could be wrong. If you can find evidence
that she has a heart, perhaps you can post it up for us. (After Fox
and Friends, of course.)

>
> too many of her opponents, incl. Hezbollah,
> Hamas and Fata want to see Israel *completely* destroyed.

No, they do not. You don't know what you are talking about, Dug.

>
> This writer (i.e., moi) is on "Deb's bad side", and she is absolutely
> incapable of doing anything about it. Unless, of course, she were to
> change the habit of a lifetime and engage in serious debate.
> *************************
> She regularly spanks her opponents here.

No she doesn't. She sprays around cantankerous rhetoric. Nobody
respects her. I suspect even you do not respect her, Dug, but a weird
sense of gallantry drives you to stick up for her.

>
> I suppose you've been one of her victims.

Ha ha! Deborah Sharavi hurts only herself, and the Zionist cause she
so crazily advocates.

DoD

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 12:38:51 AM12/20/10
to

Do you normally make yourself out to being a jackass?

Mo

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 3:23:38 AM12/20/10
to

Hey, guys, I've got a stalker? Could someone with a bit of class take
over from this bloke? He's out of his depth.

NEMO

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 3:53:26 AM12/20/10
to
.............................kissmyass Mo, says "He's out of his
depth.", it seems your depth is 6 inches.

Eunometic

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 8:19:24 AM12/20/10
to
On Dec 20, 1:41 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> > > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims.  both practice food
> > > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Horsedoovers.
>
> > > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> > > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> > > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> > > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.
>
> [Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
> unqualified, and unfounded opinion]
>
> > Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effect
> > is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest effects is to
> >circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.
>
> As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
> (kashrut) are:
>
> 1) healthy

Which explains why Jews are more likely to be on the 'big side'.

>
> 2) designed as a call to holiness;

That is the 'rationisation'. The effect is self ghettisation. Its a
'meme'


> 3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.

That excludes others because of the complexity of sharing a meal.
Muslim pukes do the same.
It prevents 'assimilation', makes the gentile seem dirty.

You call it religious, the effects or to do with tribalism,
segregation. That's is the big picture

Jude Alexander

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 9:31:04 AM12/20/10
to
dsharavi wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:23 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>> "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
>>> Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. both practice food
>>> taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> Horsedoovers.
>
> The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question
> that some of the dietary laws have beneficial health effects;
> moreover, the health benefits derived from kashrut were not made
> obsolete by refrigeration. For one example, there's evidence that
> eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no
> modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the
> kosher law of eating them separately. For another, the laws regarding
> kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and
> slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.

Is the only difference between kosher meat the way it is slaughtered. Have
you ever tasted non-kosher meat? Do they taste the same? I'm curious.


dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:08:21 PM12/20/10
to
On Dec 19, 6:49 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
> "DThomas" <deborah.thoma...@gmail.com> wrotenews:c12ead8e-3cb2-4091...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 19, 3:40 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>
> >> "The epithet "anti-Semitism" is hurled to silence anyone,
>
> > Would you prefer the term Jew hater? Both describe you.
>
> Since Semitism is a worst form of racism,
> invented by the COck-sucking sectarians,
> it's only flattering to be called anti-semitist.

Then, be flattered, ignorant Jew hater.

Deborah

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:15:05 PM12/20/10
to

>Debwhorah

Be fucked, ignorant jew whore.

redux

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:20:46 PM12/20/10
to
In article <db073dbd-67ac-4c04...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 19, 6:49=A0pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>> "DThomas" <deborah.thoma...@gmail.com> wrotenews:c12ead8e-3cb2-4091-b1d5-=
>8edecb...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> > On Dec 19, 3:40 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>>
>> >> "The epithet "anti-Semitism" is hurled to silence anyone,
>>
>> > Would you prefer the term Jew hater? Both describe you.
>>
>> Since Semitism is a worst form of racism,
>> invented by the COck-sucking sectarians,
>> it's only flattering to be called anti-semitist.

Not Semitism. ZioNazism and Zionism.

>Then, be flattered, ignorant Jew hater.

You look like full of hate upto your ears.
I have to wipe the foam from my screen after reading your stuff.

>Deborah
>

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:26:47 PM12/20/10
to

They don't. When animals are butchered by standard methods, it sends
lots of adrenalin rushing through their systems. Kosher butchering
does not. Additionally, kosher meat extends to how the animals are
raised -- which means they're NOT raised jammed together in unsanitary
pens, sprayed with chemicals, and fed by the rote. They're essentially
range-fed. At least, that's what I was told by a friend in eastern
Oregon who raises kosher cattle. And they are tasty. Also, as I'm sure
it was intended, after you've seen the cattle, you have great respect
for what you're eating.

Have you noticed in the local supermarket that organic wines and
kosher wines are grouped together?

Deborah

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:28:10 PM12/20/10
to

Since you have no knowledge about the subjects you are attempting to
addess, and you keep snipping data that would correct your woeful
ignorance, why do you bother to post to Jewish newsgroups?

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:33:29 PM12/20/10
to

Apparently. But that's endemic with the sonei Yisrael crowd.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:35:01 PM12/20/10
to

Actually, it's you who's in over his head. It's long past the time
when you should have sent out an SOS.

Deborah

Topaz

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:36:21 PM12/20/10
to

Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:

"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"

"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"

"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"

"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"

"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:45:31 PM12/20/10
to
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:15:05 -0500, Delirious The Retard, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:

But everyone who knows you and your posting history, knows that you CAN'T
fuck, poor The Retard, you hilarious housebound impotent loser! <G>

--
Retarded, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident psychopath, The
Retard!

redux

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 4:54:17 PM12/20/10
to
In article <e9f34c81-0c67-4a38...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 5:19=A0am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> On Dec 20, 1:41=A0pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
>> > > > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. =A0both practice f=

>ood
>> > > > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>>
>> > > On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Horsedoovers.
>>
>> > > > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritu=
>al
>> > > > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the la=

>ws
>> > > > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
>> > > > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.
>>
>> > [Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
>> > unqualified, and unfounded opinion]
>>
>> > > Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effect
>> > > is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest effects=

> is to
>> > >circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.
>>
>> > As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
>> > (kashrut) are:
>>
>> > 1) healthy
>>
>> Which explains why Jews are more likely to be on the 'big side'.
>>
>> > 2) designed as a call to holiness;
>>
>> That is the 'rationisation'. =A0The effect is self ghettisation. =A0Its a

>> 'meme'
>>
>> > 3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.
>>
>> That excludes others because of the complexity of sharing a meal.
>> Muslim =A0pukes do the same.

>> It prevents 'assimilation', makes the gentile seem dirty.
>>
>> You call it religious, the effects or to do with tribalism,
>> segregation. =A0That's is the big picture

>
>Since you have no knowledge about the subjects you are attempting to
>addess, and you keep snipping data that would correct your woeful
>ignorance, why do you bother to post to Jewish newsgroups?

Wake up. These are not Jewish newsgroups. They are Jewish related,
at best. Most of it is propaganda by people like you, sliming away
and running out of their skin trying to discredit anything that does
not agree with their agenda, the agenda of the most profound evil.

When are you going to produce your opinion on the quotes provided
on this thread? Do you think by avoiding it you are going to gain
some credit?

>Deborah

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:12:00 PM12/20/10
to

Kalespera, Pantahose!

But everyone DOES know that you get greeked, Pantahose, and greeked
REGULARLY! Enjoy already! Mazel tov! L'chaim! LOL
<Grease>

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:12:28 PM12/20/10
to
On Dec 20, 1:54 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

Avoiding what?

As to this not being a Jewish NG, look at the description:
Description: Jewish culture & religion.

That makes it a Jewish NG. You want to post your antisemitic drivel,
go to soc.culture.assholes'r'us.

Deborah

>
> >Deborah

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:30:14 PM12/20/10
to
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:12:00 -0500, Delirious The Retard, the resident

psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:

>>>>
>>>>Debwhorah
>>>
>>> Be fucked, ignorant jew whore.
>>
>>But everyone who knows you and your posting history, knows that you CAN'T
>>fuck, poor The Retard, you hilarious housebound impotent loser! <G>
>
> Kalespera, Pantahose!
>
> But everyone DOES know that you get greeked, Pantahose, and greeked
> REGULARLY! Enjoy already! Mazel tov! L'chaim! LOL
> <Grease>

Only in your delirious psychotic "mind", poor The Retard! But you know
yourself and feel it painfully every day that you can't fuck and that you
are a miserable housebound impotent frustrated sexual cripple! In fact you
are so miserable, you can't even hide it! It's a hoot! LMAO!

Jude Alexander

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:52:07 PM12/20/10
to

Yes, and I figured it was because they were similarily made.

Also, about kosher meat, it is more free of blood? I hate bloody meat. I
will have to try some kosher meat.

NEMO

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:56:58 PM12/20/10
to
...............Jesus Jumpin' Murphy, here we've got Da'Rev'd, Topaz &
_GOD_ all posting on the same subject & none of them have got the
sense to know what day of the week it is or to remember to wear pants.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 5:59:54 PM12/20/10
to

It's free of blood, and the animals were killed in a humane method,
unlike modern slaughter houses.

>I hate bloody meat. I will have to try some kosher meat.

It's tasty. Prepare to feel guilty, though. In Judaism it's felt that
the Almighty intended humans to be vegetarians, not carnivores. As
above, once you've seen them, you feel guilty about eating them.

Deborah

CUNTICA

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 6:04:27 PM12/20/10
to
soc.sodomy
soc.sucking.jew.ass
gr.rec.greeking
soc.culture.afro.grik

......................it says it all!

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 6:41:25 PM12/20/10
to

Do you still wear your underpants on your head, B'rian B'ris?

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 20, 2010, 6:44:46 PM12/20/10
to

jewboy B'rian B'ris...THAT says it all!

BDK

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 1:22:54 AM12/21/10
to
In article <392dc29d-b9c5-4723-b575-
1b5c05...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, euno...@yahoo.com.au
says...

You have some of the wierdest ideas I have ever heard.

--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!

redux

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 7:10:36 AM12/21/10
to
In article <1e2dbed5-397d-4743...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <desh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 1:54=A0pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <e9f34c81-0c67-4a38-8b5f-9135dc06f...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups=
>..com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 20, 5:19=3DA0am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> >> On Dec 20, 1:41=3DA0pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
>> >> > > > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. =3DA0both pract=
>ice f=3D

>> >ood
>> >> > > > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>>
>> >> > > On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > Horsedoovers.
>>
>> >> > > > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious r=
>itu=3D
>> >al
>> >> > > > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the=
> la=3D
>> >ws
>> >> > > > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have bec=

>ome
>> >> > > > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.
>>
>> >> > [Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
>> >> > unqualified, and unfounded opinion]
>>
>> >> > > Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effe=
>ct
>> >> > > is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest effe=
>cts=3D

>> > is to
>> >> > >circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.
>>
>> >> > As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
>> >> > (kashrut) are:
>>
>> >> > 1) healthy
>>
>> >> Which explains why Jews are more likely to be on the 'big side'.
>>
>> >> > 2) designed as a call to holiness;
>>
>> >> That is the 'rationisation'. =3DA0The effect is self ghettisation. =3D=

>A0Its a
>> >> 'meme'
>>
>> >> > 3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.
>>
>> >> That excludes others because of the complexity of sharing a meal.
>> >> Muslim =3DA0pukes do the same.

>> >> It prevents 'assimilation', makes the gentile seem dirty.
>>
>> >> You call it religious, the effects or to do with tribalism,
>> >> segregation. =3DA0That's is the big picture

>>
>> >Since you have no knowledge about the subjects you are attempting to
>> >addess, and you keep snipping data that would correct your woeful
>> >ignorance, why do you bother to post to Jewish newsgroups?
>>
>> Wake up. These are not Jewish newsgroups. They are Jewish related,
>> at best. Most of it is propaganda by people like you, sliming away
>> and running out of their skin trying to discredit anything that does
>> not agree with their agenda, the agenda of the most profound evil.
>>
>> When are you going to produce your opinion on the quotes provided
>> on this thread? Do you think by avoiding it you are going to gain
>> some credit?
>
>Avoiding what?

Avoiding to commend on those quotes.

>As to this not being a Jewish NG, look at the description:
>Description: Jewish culture & religion.

But that does not imply it is OWNED by any nationality.

Groups are not owned by anyone unless they are "moderated".
This is just a forum for discussion of particular issues.
Simple as that.

>That makes it a Jewish NG.

Nope, it does NOT.
Jewish NG means it is OWNED by Jews.

>You want to post your antisemitic drivel,

Look, these low life fabrications and perversions simply expose
your blood boiling hate and intolerance of any other view but
the zomby program between your ears, and nothing else.

>go to soc.culture.assholes'r'us.

Not nice.

>Deborah
>
>
>
>>
>> >Deborah
>

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 7:13:18 AM12/21/10
to
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:41:25 -0500, Delirious The Retard, the resident

psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:

Are you still locked up in your dark stinking room in London, desperately
trying to climax somehow by letting yourself get fucked by everyone who
comes across you on Usenet, poor The Retard? <BG>

--
The Retard about himself:
"And you just wish someone, anyone, anything would cornhole you!"

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 7:13:18 AM12/21/10
to
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:44:46 -0500, Delirious The Retard, the resident

psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:

It just keeps proving that you indeed ARE a hilarious housebound frustrated
impotent sexual cripple! But we've known that all the time, innit? LOL

Jude Alexander

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 11:39:25 AM12/21/10
to

LOL I don't know about feeling guilty. I forgot for a bit there but I'm
pretty sure I've eating kosher meat before though at Jewish Deli in
Philadelphia (the sandwiches were absolutely delicious and piled high with
meat) although it wasn't beef and that is what I was asking about. I'm
going to look for kosher place here where I live and see what I can find. :)


Jude Alexander

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 11:47:45 AM12/21/10
to

Oh, btw, I'm not refuting what you said about dairy and meat because,
perhaps, most people's digestive system can't handle the two together.
However, *I* am a milk lover. In fact the first sentence I ever said and
read "I love milk" from my milk cup. When I'm thirty, I drink milk vs.
water many times. I drink milk with all kinds of meat all the time and have
a digestive tract of steel. I may be exception to the rule.

Also, one last thing. I believe in the basic respect of all living things
and that we shouldn't kill anything that isn't trying to eat usor damage us
or that we need to eat to survive. I've watched the raising and
slaughtering of bovine and poultry on documentaries and it's a disgrace.
Always looking to stretch that freaking profit with no concern for the human
treatment of our food animals.


Michael Ejercito

unread,
Dec 21, 2010, 1:01:06 PM12/21/10
to
On Dec 20, 1:36 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>          Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
> after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
>
> "Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
> whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
> measures of the United States Congress"
>
>     "The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
> this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
> several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
> the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
> the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
> the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
> political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
> arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
> white women by black men"
What were these outrages?


Michael

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 3:33:42 PM12/22/10
to
On Dec 20, 5:19 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Dec 20, 1:41 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> > > > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims.  both practice food
> > > > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> > > On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Horsedoovers.
>
> > > > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> > > > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> > > > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> > > > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.
>
> > [Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
> > unqualified, and unfounded opinion]
>
> > > Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary effect
> > > is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest effects is to

> > >circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.
>
> > As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
> > (kashrut) are:
>
> > 1) healthy
>
> Which explains why Jews are more likely to be on the 'big side'.

Because they want to be healthy? You're condemning Jews for wanting to
eat heathily?

> > 2) designed as a call to holiness;
>

> That is the 'rationisation'.  The effect is self ghettisation.  Its a
> 'meme'

It's a rabbinical explanation. Your "explanation" is simply ignorant
bullshit.

> > 3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.
>
> That excludes others because of the complexity of sharing a meal.

It doesn't exclude others.

> Muslim  pukes do the same.

They don't.

> It prevents 'assimilation', makes the gentile seem dirty.

It has nothing to do with gentiles.

> You call it religious, the effects or to do with tribalism,

> segregation.  That's is the big picture

You couldn't see the big picture with the Hubble telescope. You're
blinkered by your hatred and unwillingness to augment your ignorance.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 3:34:19 PM12/22/10
to
On Dec 20, 6:31 am, "Jude Alexander" <Jude@do_not_bother.net> wrote:
> dsharavi wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:23 am, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> >> "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
> >>> Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims.  both practice food
> >>> taboos to segregate themselves,
>
> > Horsedoovers.
>
> > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious ritual
> > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that the laws
> > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become
> > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question

> > that some of the dietary laws have beneficial health effects;
> > moreover, the health benefits derived from kashrut were not made
> > obsolete by refrigeration.  For one example, there's evidence that
> > eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no
> > modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the
> > kosher law of eating them separately. For another, the laws regarding
> > kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and
> > slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.
>
> Is the only difference between kosher meat the way it is slaughtered.  Have
> you ever tasted non-kosher meat?  Do they taste the same?  I'm curious.

The way it's raised, too. And, yes, it does taste different.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:04:17 PM12/22/10
to
On Dec 21, 3:40 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> Well, is it from this song?
>
> "The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews
> is greater and deeper than the difference between a human
> soul and the souls of cattle"
> -- Quotes by Jewish Rabbis

Rubbish. Naturally, you can't name a single rabbi who ever said the
foregoing.

> "The Jew is the living God, God incarnate: he is the heavenly man.
> The other men are earthly, of inferior race.
> They exist only to serve the Jew.
> The Goyim (non Jew) are the cattle seed."
> -- Jewish Cabala

The Jewish .... what?


> "The non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves."
> -- Midrasch Talpioth 225.

What's a Midrasch Talpioth?

> "As you replace lost cows and donkeys, so you shall replace non-Jews."
> -- Lore Dea 377, 1.

What's a Lore Dea? Some character played Marilyn Monroe?

> "Sexual intercourse with non-Jews is like sexual intercourse with animals."
> -- Kethuboth 3b.


Here's "Kethuboth 3b". Where, exactly, does it state the foregoing
twaddle?Talmud - Mas. Kethuboth 3b

What is [the reference to] shakedu? [For] it has been taught: Why did
they say that a maiden is married on the fourth day? ‘Because if he
had a claim as to virginity he could go early [next morning] to the
court of justice. But let her be married on the first day in the week
and if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [on the
morning of the second day in the week] to the court of justice? — The
Sages watched over the interests of the daughters of Israel so that
[the man] should prepare for the [wedding-]feast three days, the first
day in the week, and the second day in the week, and the third day in
the week, and on the fourth day he marries her. And from [the time of]
danger and onwards the people made it a custom to marry on the third
day and the Sages did not interfere with them. And on the second day
[of the week] he shall not marry; and if on account of the constraint1
it is allowed. And one separates the bridegroom from the bride on the
nights of Sabbath at the beginning,2 because he makes a wound.3

What [was the] danger? If I say that they said, ‘a maiden that gets
married on the fourth day [of the week] shall be killed’, [then how
state] ‘they made it a custom’? We should abolish it entirely! — Said
Rabbah: [That] they said, ‘a maiden that gets married on the fourth
day [of the week] shall have the first sexual intercourse with the
prefect.’5 [You call] this danger? [Surely] this [is a case of]
constraint!6 — Because there are chaste women who would rather
surrender themselves to death and [thus] come to danger. But let one
expound to them7 that [in a case of] constraint [it] is allowed?8 —
There are loose women9 and there are also priestesses.10 But [then]
let one abolish it?11 A decree12 is likely to cease, and [therefore]
we do not abolish an ordinance of the Rabbis on account of a decree.
If so, on the third day he [the prefect] would also come and have
intercourse [with the bride]? — Out of doubt he does not move himself.
13

[It is stated above:] ‘And on the second day [of the week] he shall
not marry; and if on account of the constraint it is allowed.’ What
constraint [is referred to]? Shall I say [that it is] that which we
have said?14 There,15 one calls it ‘danger’ ‘and here, one calls it
[mere] ‘constraint’! And further, there [it states], ‘they made it a
custom’, [whilst] here, ‘it is allowed’!16 — Said Raba: [it is that]
they say ‘a general has come to town.17 In what case? If he comes and
passes by,18 let it be delayed!19 — It is not necessary [to state this
but] that he came and stayed. Let him, [then], marry on the third day
[of the week]!20 — His21 vanguard arrived on the third day. And if you
wish I may say: What is [the meaning of] ‘on account of the
constraint’? As it has been taught: If his bread was baked and his
meat prepared and his wine mixed22 and the father of the bridegroom23
or the mother of the bride died,24 they bring the dead [person] into a
room and the bridegroom and the bride into the bridal chamber,25

____________________ (1) This will be explained anon. (2) If it is her
first marital union. (3) By the first act of intercourse. (4) The
Roman authorities. (5) jus primae noctis; v. J.E., VII, p. 395. (6)
[And no woman is enjoined to sacrifice her life in resisting this
assault: v. supra p. 7 n. 1, v. infra 51b.] (7) The women.
(8) V. n. 6. (9) Who might submit voluntarily. (10) Wives of priests
who would be forbidden to their husbands even when submitting under
constraint: v. infra 51b. (11) Marrying on Wednesday. (12) Of the
Romans. (13) To come into town. (14) The fear of the exercise of jus
primae noctis. (15) Earlier in the cited Baraitha. (16) [Implying that
it was not an established custom.] (17) And he would requisition the
food prepared for the wedding-feast. (18) If he only passes through
the town. (19) I.e., let the marriage be delayed till the fourth day
of the following week. (20) [Instead of the second day of the week and
thus give him a longer opportunity for making preparations for the
wedding.] (21) The general's. (22) With water, their wine being too
strong to be drunk undiluted. I.e., all the preparations for the
wedding had been made. (23) [Who had to provide for the wedding-
feast.] (24) [Who provided the wife with her trousseau.] (25) Huppah,
v. Glos. First the marriage and then the mourning.

> ----------------------------------
>
> "Just the Jews are humans, the non-Jews are not humans, but cattle."
> -- Kerithuth 6b, page 78, Jebhammoth 61.

What's a Kerithuth? What's a Jebhammoth?

> -- Pranaitis, I.B., The Talmud Unmasked,

Pranaitis - rotflmao.

> From this it becomes clear that god simply means Nag-Dravid king.
>
David was a nag?


> "The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws.
> They are more important than the Laws of Moses i.e. The Torah."
> -- Miszna, Sanhedryn XI, 3.

The what?

You've got to do better than posting a bunch of tripe.

Deborah

Mo

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:09:34 PM12/22/10
to

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:10:19 PM12/22/10
to

And that's why I'm nearly a vegetarian. I like I.B. Singer's reply to
the question: "Are you a vegetarian for your health's sake?" "No, for
the health of the animals."

Deborah

Mo

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:12:18 PM12/22/10
to
On Dec 21, 10:35 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ha! Is that your idea of a riposte? Still, you've refrained from your
standard torrent of racist abuse on this occasion, which is
encouraging.

Stewart

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:26:33 PM12/22/10
to

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:392dc29d-b9c5-4723...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 20, 1:41 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > "Eunometic" eunome...@yahoo.com.au says...
>> > > > > Jews follow different stratagies to Muslims. both practice
>> > > > > food
>> > > > > taboos to segregate themselves,
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 8:03 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Horsedoovers.
>>
>> > > The laws of kashrut elevate the act of eating into a religious
>> > > ritual
>> > > that shows respect for creation. Many modern Jews think that
>> > > the laws
>> > > of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have
>> > > become
>> > > obsolete with modern methods of food preparation.
>>
>> [Very large snip by "Eurometic" of text contradicting his/her
>> unqualified, and unfounded opinion]
>>
>> > Whatever the explanation its (and there are many) its primary
>> > effect
>> > is simple: it's a food taboo of piffling value, whose biggest
>> > effects is to
>> >circumscibe and segregate Jews from Gentiles.
>>
>> As previously stated, and snipped by "Eurometic", the dietary laws
>> (kashrut) are:
>>
>> 1) healthy
>
> Which explains why Jews are more likely to be on the 'big side'.
>
>>
>> 2) designed as a call to holiness;
>
> That is the 'rationisation'. The effect is self ghettisation. Its
> a
> 'meme'
>
>
>> 3) elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual.
>
> That excludes others because of the complexity of sharing a meal.

Nothing complex. Anyone may break bread with us if they chose to do
so. No harm, no foul.

> Muslim pukes do the same.

> It prevents 'assimilation', makes the gentile seem dirty.

Seem?

>
> You call it religious, the effects or to do with tribalism,
> segregation. That's is the big picture

Maybe we should all sit together and sing Kumbaya...


NEMO

unread,
Dec 22, 2010, 5:33:23 PM12/22/10
to
......................so, kissmyass Mo, is Mo short for Moron or
Moronic?

Jude Alexander

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 11:13:02 AM12/23/10
to

LOL

I've tried to be a vegetarian twice but I miss meat. I don't eat a lo
thought. In fact, I pretty much eat what I later learned the experts say we
need and that's about 3-6 ounces/day. Most people eat 3/4 times that much.
Also, being from the south USA, I love dishes like red beans and rice and
can get protein from beans and some vegetables. A couple of people I know
do protein drinks because they are so disgusted by meat.


NefeshBarYochai

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 1:43:46 PM12/23/10
to
> do protein drinks because they are so disgusted by meat.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nobody gives a shit about what you eat maggot. You are being punshed
by HaShem.

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 1:51:07 PM12/23/10
to

Nobody gives a shit about hashem, Yochi. Go fuck yourself.

NefeshBarYochai

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 2:00:35 PM12/23/10
to
> Nobody gives a shit about hashem, Yochi.  Go fuck yourself.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You are being punished by HaShem!!!!

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 2:02:27 PM12/23/10
to

You have been fucked up by hashem, nigger. Merry Christmas, asshole!!!

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 2:39:31 PM12/23/10
to
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:51:07 -0600, Delirious The Retard, the resident

psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:

>>>
>>> > And that's why I'm nearly a vegetarian. I like I.B. Singer's reply to
>>> > the question: "Are you a vegetarian for your health's sake?" "No, for
>>> > the health of the animals."
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> I've tried to be a vegetarian twice but I miss meat.  I don't eat a lo
>>> thought.  In fact, I pretty much eat what I later learned the experts say we
>>> need and that's about 3-6 ounces/day.  Most people eat  3/4 times that much.
>>> Also, being from the south USA, I love dishes like red beans and rice and
>>> can get protein from beans and some vegetables.  A couple of people I know
>>> do protein drinks because they are so disgusted by meat.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Nobody gives a shit about what you eat maggot. You are being punshed
>>by HaShem.
>
> Nobody gives a shit about hashem, Yochi. Go fuck yourself.

Obviously NOBODY gives a shit about you poor sod in RL! And obviously you
got nobody to fuck! LOL

The Peeler

unread,
Dec 23, 2010, 3:28:44 PM12/23/10
to
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:02:27 -0600, Delirious The Retard, the resident

psychopath of sci and scj, faking his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:


>>> >> Also, being from the south USA, I love dishes like red beans and rice and
>>> >> can get protein from beans and some vegetables. A couple of people I know
>>> >> do protein drinks because they are so disgusted by meat.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >Nobody gives a shit about what you eat maggot.  You are being punshed
>>> >by HaShem.
>
>>>
>>> Nobody gives a shit about hashem, Yochi.  Go fuck yourself.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>You are being punished by HaShem!!!!
>
> You have been fucked up by hashem, nigger. Merry Christmas, asshole!!!

Nobody around here who is obviously as fucked up as you are, poor The
Retard, you hilarious housebound frustrated impotent sexual cripple from
London! And yeah, Christ was a JEW, asshole! LOL

--
The top 5 truths about our resident psychopath, The Retard:

the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
he can't get out of the house anymore,
he got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
he can't FUCK anymore,
he got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 3:43:31 PM12/27/10
to
On Dec 22, 5:17 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:ietpsu$3f9$1...@tornado.tornevall.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <cNSdnVznl_0pzo_QnZ2dnUVZ_sOdn...@westnet.com.au>, "Seon"
> > <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>"Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >>news:4d11ed8a$0$22469$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

>
> >>> "Mo" <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:5819fb46-e4b0-4642...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Dec 21, 8:44 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >>>> "Truman Kaputt" <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:lY2dnfOOY7g9xI3Q...@earthlink.com...
>
> >>>> > On 12/20/2010 11:27 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>>> >> "Truman Kaputt" <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote in message
> >>>> >>news:V9CdnQCHBpt1zo3Q...@earthlink.com...
> >>>> >>> On 12/20/2010 11:12 PM, Seon wrote:
>
> >>>> >>>> "Truman Kaputt" <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote in message
> >>>> >>>>news:fs2dnYp6UdzmpY3Q...@earthlink.com...
> >>>> >>>>> On 12/20/2010 9:13 PM, mirjam wrote:
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Actually, I'm not laughing at them. I pity them.
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Deborah
>
> >>>> >>>>>> Deborah is right , we all should pity sick people .
> >>>> >>>>>> mirjam
>
> >>>> >>>>> Opposing Israel and ZioNazis isn't sick.
>
> >>>> >>>> Just ignorant.
>
> >>>> >>> Nope - it's right and just.
>
> >>>> >>> Zionism is racism.
>
> >>>> >> Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a homeland in the
> >>>> >> Middle
> >>>> >> East.
>
> >>>> >> How is this racist?
>
> >>>> > Because it uses the ethnic sense of "Jew". It's not about religion;
> >>>> > it's
> >>>> > about race/ethnicity.
>
> >>>> > The belief holds that Jews - the Jewish people - should have an
> >>>> > *exclusive* homeland in the Middle East, and that Palestinians
> >>>> > shouldn't.
> >>>> > That's racist.
>
> >>>> But the Hamas charter says that Palestine should be exclusively a
> >>>> Muslim
> >>>> nation. If you want to know what that means look at Saudi Arabia.
>
> >>> No, the Hamas charter does not say that.
> >>> Let's remember that Israel
> >>> backed Hamas militarily and diplomatically in order to destroy, or at
> >>> least counter, the threat of a liberal democratic Palestine Liberation
> >>> Organisation.
> >>> _______________________________________
> >>> Why? Why remember this? What does it have to do with the current charter
> >>> of Hamas, which is what is being discussed? Do you just want to chnage
> >>> the
> >>> topic for some reason?
>
> >>> But then I don't believe you have any substantial
> >>> knowledge of Israeli/Palestinian history,
> >>> _________________________________________
> >>> And yes, a gratuitous insult. He may or may not have substantial
> >>> knowledge
> >>> of Israeli/Palestinian history, but I do. All you have demonstrated is a
> >>> poor attempt to change the topic and a poorly executed ad-hominem
> >>> attack.
>
> >>I have more knowledge than I did when I was a critic like Mo.
>
> >>> Israel is a modern, pluralistic, multi-cultural state with universal
> >>> suffrage and in which Muslims have exactly the same rigts as Jews and
> >>> everybody else. Hamas want to destroy it.
>
> >>Also people are allowed religious freedom in Israel, if Hamas had their
> >>way
> >>everyone would be Muslim and non Muslims would be expelled...or worse.
>
> > "We told the authorities in London; we shall be in Palestine
> > whether you want us there or not.
>
> > You may speed up or slow down our coming, but it would be better
> > for you to help us, otherwise our constructive force will turn
> > into a destructive one that will bring about ferment in the entire world."
>
> > -- Judishe Rundschau, #4, 1920, Germany, by Chaim Weismann,
> >   a Zionist leader
>
> Why are you quoting what a Jewish person said in 1920?

He's not. This is another faked (non)quote from the usual antisemitic
sites.

>Hamas didn't even
> exist in 1920. Like racist cranks the internet over, when beaten in an
> argument you just try and change the topic of the conversation to something
> that you think makes Jews look bad.
>
> When the topic of the conversation is Germany, do you decide to drop in
> irrelevant quotes from the 1920s from people with German sounding names?
>
> If we were discussing Japanese trade, would you decide to quote what some
> Japanese person said 90 years ago on some unrelated topic?
>
> Of course not.
>
> You only do this on the subject of Israel and the Jews.
>
> The subject is the Hamas charter, you provide a list of quotes from now
> long-dead Jewish people, of course people will also realise you are a racist
> nutter, even if you don't.
> HTH

Actually, the alleged "quote" isn't from the 1920s, or from Chaim
Weizmann at any other time. It's parroted on the likes of Stormfront,
BibleBelievers, IslamicParty.com, jahtruth.com, etc. It seems to have
originated in 1993 from "The Truth About the 'Zog Blog'", by Gyeorgos
C. Hatonn, another mentally defective antisemite. His book is labelled
as fiction.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 3:49:43 PM12/27/10
to
On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:21 pm, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> is as confused as ever:

>
>
>
> > "redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >news:ietsv7$3f9$1...@tornado.tornevall.net...
>
> > > In article
> > > <68dbbaad-b6fc-4b24-a22b-83f073da3...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > > dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >>On Dec 20, 11:38=A0pm, Truman Kaputt <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote:
> > >>> On 12/20/2010 11:27 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > >>> > "Truman Kaputt" <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote in message
> > >>> >news:V9CdnQCHBpt1zo3Q...@earthlink.com...
> > >>> >> On 12/20/2010 11:12 PM, Seon wrote:
>
> > >>> >>> "Truman Kaputt" <dead.qu...@grave.in.hell> wrote in message
> > >>> >>>news:fs2dnYp6UdzmpY3Q...@earthlink.com...
> > >>> >>>> On 12/20/2010 9:13 PM, mirjam wrote:
>
> > >>> >>>>>> Actually, I'm not laughing at them. I pity them.
>
> > >>> >>>>>> Deborah
>
> > >>> >>>>> Deborah is right , we all should pity sick people .
> > >>> >>>>> mirjam
>
> > >>> >>>> Opposing Israel and ZioNazis isn't sick.
>
> > >>> >>> Just ignorant.
>
> > >>> >> Nope - it's right and just.
>
> > >>> >> Zionism is racism.
>
> > >>> > Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a homeland in the
> > >>> > Middl=

> > >>e
> > >>> > East.
>
> > >>> > How is this racist?
>
> > >>> Because it uses the ethnic sense of "Jew". =A0It's not about religion;

> > >>> it's about race/ethnicity.
>
> > >>> The belief holds that Jews - the Jewish people - should have an
> > >>> *exclusive* homeland in the Middle East, and that Palestinians
> > >>> shouldn't. =A0That's racist.
>
> > >>It's the Palestinians who want that "exclusive" homeland, not Jews. So
> > >>your argument, such as it is, goes down the drain.
>
> > > So far, the state of Israel exists.
> > > But the state of Palestine does not.
>
> > There is a Palestinian homeland. It is called Jordan.
>
> No, it's called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

The "West Bank" is the holdover name from the time Jordan seized it.
Thus, it became the "West Bank" of the kingdom of Jordan. Gaza,
controlled by Egypt for two decades, has always been known as Gaza.

>
> > If your problem is that there is no country actually called "Palestine", why
> > don't you start a petition to have Jordan change its name?
>
> > > And the land belongs to Palestenians as they lived there for as long
> > > as we know.
>
> > Many Jews are Palestinians.
>
> Yes, and they have the right to live in a democratic Palestinian
> state.

They do live in a democratic state; it's called Israel.

Deborah


dsharavi

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 4:51:31 PM12/27/10
to

Every now and then I crave red meat. I think I'm going into one of
those phases now. After it passes, I'll go back to fish and veggies.

Deborah

le mot justé

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 7:44:31 PM12/27/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:db35243d-7752-4b57...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com...


No it is not a fake. It is a true account of what was said. It is only
fairly recently that the Jews have tried to counter this and many other
quotes, to make them appear to have been false.

You fail in this argument.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 7:59:32 PM12/27/10
to
On Dec 27, 4:44 pm, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

It is fake, like most of your hate-dripping posts.

Deborah

le mot justé

unread,
Dec 27, 2010, 8:52:25 PM12/27/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb6b229c-7e6a-487b...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

You are wrong, Elizabeth. It is not wrong and I do not post hate-dripping
posts. You do that as you have just proved.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 12:25:13 AM12/28/10
to
>>On Dec 22, 11:32 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>>>Not all Jews follow the racist Talmud the way not all Muslims follow the
>>>fascist Hadith.
>
>"dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote
>>The Talmud is not racist.
>
>>"Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that
>>whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he
>>destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible
>>considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one
>>man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one
>>should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Also,
>>man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One,
>>Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all
>>resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be
>>He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them
>>resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to
>>say, 'The world was created for my sake"'.
>>BT Sanhedrin 4:5
>
On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>Nice teaching, maybe it's something Jesus would say.

Where do you think he would have gotten it?

>But:
>"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are
>beasts."
>Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>

Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the
technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of
this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection
Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the
sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God,
saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this
Biblical
verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not
other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish
corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14:
"This
is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that
cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is
legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put
Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but
beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not
appear in the original.
catam...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
catamont-2305980759150...@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net
Here is an accurate translation:
R. Shimon b. Yochai said: Graves of non-Jews do not transmit
ritual impurity, as it is written, "And you, my flock, the flock
of my pasturs, you are Adam" (Ezekiel 34:31)--only you
are called "Adam."
Here is some explanation:
We learn the law of ritual impurity from another verse
that uses the word "Adam." "Only you are called 'Adam'"
means that the term "Adam"--"man"--in particular applies to
Jews. Other words, such as "Ha'adam"--"the man"--also
apply to non-Jews. So the Gemara is saying that the word
"Adam" without the definite article only refers to Jews.
Now you know the truth. This passage in the Talmud says
nothing at all about who is a human being. And besides that,
the supposed quote contains a completely fabricated sentence:
"They are beasts.")
- From: Yitzchak Goodman
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:30:12 -0500
RESPONSE (1)
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai alone makes the statement that non-Jews are
not
considered in the laws of impurity - therefore a priest can touch a
non-Jewish corpse without being defiled. It nowhere states that
non-Jews are not human, or that only Jews are human.
Avraham Hampel
RESPONSE (2)
Okay, here we have piece of misinformation number 1; a slick one,
because anyone who read this line would surely be outraged. But this
has nothing to do with designating anyone as "men."
What is going on here is a method of analysis known as a "hekesh," or
in English a "linkage." The verse from the Bible says, "And I made my
sheep (those who follow my commandments) into sheep, my flock into
Man." From there, the Sages understand similar usages of the term
"Man"
to mean the nation which follows the commandments - the Jewish
People.
The Tosafos in Sanhedrin 59a, points out many times when Gentiles are
indeed referred to as "Man?"
<5ptttd$33...@news.nyu.edu> mat6...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)
RESPONSE (3)
This is a mistranslation of the term "adam". Also, the Talmud just
has
a Rabbi quoting Ezekiel XXXIV, 31 in this place. Nothing is being
said
about non-Jews not being human or only Jews being human.
behre...@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (4)
Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the
technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of
this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection
Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the
sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God,
saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this
Biblical
verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not
other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish
corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14:
"This
is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that
cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is
legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put
Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but
beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not
appear in the original.
RESPONSE (5)
In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person]
dies inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the laws
of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.
The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to
Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person'
would
indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral
tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or
'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is
usually
to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.
The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My
sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called
'adam' [men],
and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".
Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this
passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national
law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference
is
not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by
that
national law code.
Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only
to
Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as
follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the
purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are
bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by
the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from
Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.
Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context
is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse
or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews
only (in this way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but
when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.
With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as
follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a
negative
context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews
only, and not to non-Jews".
This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in
Baba
Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed
at
any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the
other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out
that the application of this principle of interpretation is
questionable in any event.
Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation
is
mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also
point
out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They
specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara
3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study
to the High Priest.
Michael Gruda (mgr...@netvision.net.il)

>"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the
>the dog more than the non-Jew."
>Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

What is an Ereget Raschi Erod cited as a reference? It doesn't
exist, therefore the "quote" is another forgery. "Akum" specifically
means idolater. It does not refer to non-Jews in general.
Additionally,
the writing style is totally inconsistent with writings of this type
which are extremely terse and abbreviated since they assume a
great deal of prior knowledge.

>"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form.
>It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be
>served by animals in human form."
>Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

I was unable to check this reference in my extensive Judaica library.
The book "Midrash Talpioth" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-
century Kabbalistic work that is little known and carries no
authority
whatsoever. Even if the citation were correct (which seems doubtful
in
light of the other examples on this list, and the fact that Jews
never
employ the designation "Jehovah"), it is hard to imagine what could
be
proven from it about Judaism or the Talmud.
From Usenet message catamont-2305980759150...@ts003d13.den-
co.concentric.net

The actual book in question is not part of the Talmud but was
written by a Turkish Jew called Elijah ben Solomon Abraham, ha-Koen
in
the eighteenth century. And it is unlikey that the quote exists given
the other forgeries on this list.
David S. Maddison (maddi...@connexus.net.au)

>"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
>Coschen hamischpat 405

The above quote is a wrong inference from a fiscal law in Shulchan
Oruch, Choshen Mishpat 405.3, that relates to times when slavery was
a
standard and accepted practice across the world.
It states that if an ox gored a pregnant woman, and this resulted in
the loss of the fetus, the owner does not have to pay for the loss of
the fetus (medical expenses and other damages are discussed
elsewhere). If an ox gored a pregnant non-Jewish slave-woman, the
owner of the ox has to pay for the loss of the fetus to the owner of
the slave-woman (because the owner would have had another slave to
work for him had the woman given birth). The same applies if the ox
gored a pregnant cow, or a sheep, because had the animal given birth,
the owner would have had an extra one. The law is clearly hinged on
the rights of the owner, and does not compare non-Jews and animals in
any way. It is purely legal, and does not have any philosophical or
social implications.
I.I.
>"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
>Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

The above quote does not exist in the source. The reference to page
12b in Yalkut Reuveini is meaningless, as the pages are numbered
individually, not having "a" and "b" parts.
Yalkut does quote from Shnei Luchot Habrit (in Sefer Dovor
Shebikdusho, Os Alef), that the souls of two ancient nations (Amoni
and Moavi that do not exist now), come from "the spirit of impurity",
but the same goes for the soul of a bastard (mamzer) of Jewish
origin.
I.I.
>"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare
>with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
>Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

A complete fabrication. The reference to p.250 b is meaningless
(unless "b" stands for "column 2"), as each page is individually
numbered. There is no mention of any comparison of Jews to non-Jews
on
page 250.
I.I.

>"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
>Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

This appears to be another forgery, and not only because the given
"source" - Tosapoth, Jebamoth - doesn't exist.

>"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express
>sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss',
>just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
>Jore dea 377, 1

The Mishna from which this law is derived speaks about a specific
formula [in] Hebrew "Hamokom menachem eschem" that is said to
somebody
whose close relative died within [the] last 7 days, it does not mean
regular words of consolation. A question is asked by the
commentators:
the above formula is said [by] the grieving person only for a close
relative, and not even for a distant relative or a regular Jew, so
why
do we have to be told that it's not said for a servant? Several
answers are given: either the personal servant is so close to his
master, that he is considered by the master as his son, or because
the
servant was his property the master considered him part of his body
so
to speak. So why not say the above formula? The reason given is that
people who don't know the master might hear and think that the slave
was completely Jewish and part of master's family, which might lead
to
confusion. Actually, the same Mishna mentions that R. Gamaliel
accepted this formula [of] condolence for his slave, because he
respected the slave greatly for his Torah knowledge.
I.I.

>"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
>Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

Sanhedrin 74b sys no such thing.

>"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
>Sepher ikkarim III c 25

This is a misquotation. Rabbi Yosef Albo (the author) was asked by a
Christian thinker about seeming injustice of the laws of Judaism
dealing with charging interest on a loan. (According to Deuteronomy
23:20 and 23:21, a Jew is not allowed to lend with interest to
another
Jew, but may do so to a Gentile). R. Albo answers: The "Gentile" or
"heathen" in the above passage refers to idolater, who refuses to
keep
seven Noahide laws. The laws are universal for all mankind: 1)
prohibition of idolatry, 2) prohibition of blasphemy, 3) prohibition
of murder, 4) prohibition of immorality and promiscuity, 5)
prohibition of theft, 6) establishment of judicial system, 7)
prohibition of cruelty to animals. Such a person, who does not
respect
other's rights, places himself apart from human community and
therefore can expect to be treated according to his own rules. He is
a
threat to everyone around and hence if somebody kills him, that
person
is not charged. On the contrary, even according to non-Jewish
philosophers in those days (14th and 15th century, Spain), as R Albo
brings, such a person should be killed. So it is regarding money
matters: the prohibition of taking interest, that applies to
everybody, including a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws (as R. Albo
mentions a few sentences earlier), do not apply to him.
I.I.
>
>"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to
>the denying ones of the Torah."
>Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

Chosen Hamm's Sixpack?

This is from the Shulkan Arukh and applies to Jewish heretics.
The following line in this passage is that this law does not apply to
anyone non-Jewish and it is forbidden to harm any gentile. The Jewish
heretics are people which are a potential cause of harm and trouble
to
the Jewish nation. The penalty is designed to demonstrate the
severity
with which heretical views were considered, rather than a practical
penalty as such penalties were rarely imposed.

>"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
>Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

Avodah Zara 4b does not say this - this is another forgery.

>"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the
>same as making a sacrifice to God."
>Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

Midrash Bamidbar Raba 21:
"[Numbers 23:11 regarding Phinehas who killed Zimri for fornicating
with a Midianite woman] `Because he was zealous for his G-d and
atoned
for the children of Israel' It says he atoned - did he bring a
sacrifice? This teaches us that whoever spills the blood of the
wicked
is like someone who brings a sacrifice."

>But you know me, I don't think every single Jew follows the Talmud. Some do,
>they are racists in every group even Jews but I'm not one of those people
>who think just because some Jews have an attitude towards non Jews they al
>do. The same applies to Muslims, Christians etc.

Most Jews don't follow Talmudic law. But those who follow it aren't
racists for doing so. ESPECIALLY when the so-called "quotes from the
Talmud" are all fakeries, like those above.

Deborah


Seon

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 1:04:16 AM12/28/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3ac02ba3-5f07-4f01...@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

I should have realized that they were just someone's interpretation of the
passages. I feel kind of angry that the author I read miss lead me but
perhaps he himself was mislead as well. But that is just what anti Muslims
do, they provide quotes from the Koran out of context or just use their
interpretation so I should have realized that anti Semites would use that
same trick. But as I said I never thought all Jews were racist. I learnt a
long time ago not to judge an entire religion or culture based on the views
of some of them.

> Deborah
>
>

le mot just�

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 7:21:30 AM12/28/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac02ba3-5f07-4f01...@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.

le mot justé

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 7:22:05 AM12/28/10
to

"Seon" <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:d46dnZjpvNh24ITQ...@westnet.com.au...

You are being misled alright. By Buckwalter.


redux

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 9:59:52 AM12/28/10
to

What is phony here is YOU.
Simple as that.
Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.

Seon

unread,
Dec 28, 2010, 3:30:30 PM12/28/10
to

"le mot justé" <l...@tcom.fr> wrote in message
news:4d19d6e2$0$12803$a32e...@newsservers.net...

Are those verses I posted in the original Talmud?

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 12:36:06 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 27, 10:04 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Actually, the antisemitic trick came first. I don't know that I've
ever seen an extensive list of faked Muslim quotes.

Deborah

redux

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 12:42:20 PM12/29/10
to
In article <51f14153-e5f9-45d7...@o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 27, 10:04=A0pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3ac02ba3-5f07-4f01...@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com...=

>>>>On Dec 22, 11:32 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>> >>>>Not all Jews follow the racist Talmud the way not all Muslims follow =

>the
>> >>>>fascist Hadith.
>>
>> >>"dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote
>> >>>The Talmud is not racist.
>>
>> >>>"Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that
>> >>>whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he
>> >>>destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible
>> >>>considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one
>> >>>man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one
>> >>>should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Also,
>> >>>man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One,
>> >>>Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all
>> >>>resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be
>> >>>He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them
>> >>>resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to
>> >>>say, 'The world was created for my sake"'.
>> >>>BT Sanhedrin 4:5
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>> >>Nice teaching, maybe it's something Jesus would say.
>>
>> > Where do you think he would have gotten it?
>>
>> >>But:
>> >>"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. The=
>> >>"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor =

>the
>> >>the dog more than the non-Jew."
>> >>Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
>>
>> > What is an Ereget Raschi Erod cited as a reference? It doesn't
>> > exist, therefore the "quote" is another forgery. =A0"Akum" specifically

>> > means idolater. It does not refer to non-Jews in general.
>> > Additionally,
>> > the writing style is totally inconsistent with writings of this type
>> > which are extremely terse and abbreviated since they assume a
>> > great deal of prior knowledge.
>>
>> >>"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human fo=
>rm.
>> >>It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he wil=
>> >>"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they comp=
>> >>"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animal=
>> >>"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belo=

>ng
>> >>to
>> >>the denying ones of the Torah."
>> >>Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
>>
>> > Chosen Hamm's Sixpack?
>>
>> > This is from the Shulkan Arukh and applies to Jewish heretics.
>> > The following line in this passage is that this law does not apply to
>> > anyone non-Jewish and it is forbidden to harm any gentile. The Jewish
>> > heretics are people which are a potential cause of harm and trouble
>> > to
>> > the Jewish nation. The penalty is designed to demonstrate the
>> > severity
>> > with which heretical views were considered, rather than a practical
>> > penalty as such penalties were rarely imposed.
>>
>> >>"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
>> >>Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
>>
>> > Avodah Zara 4b does not say this - this is another forgery.
>>
>> >>"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing th=

>e
>> >>same as making a sacrifice to God."
>> >>Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
>>
>> > Midrash Bamidbar Raba 21:
>> > "[Numbers 23:11 regarding Phinehas who killed Zimri for fornicating
>> > with a Midianite woman] `Because he was zealous for his G-d and
>> > atoned
>> > for the children of Israel' It says he atoned - did he bring a
>> > sacrifice? This teaches us that whoever spills the blood of the
>> > wicked
>> > is like someone who brings a sacrifice."
>>
>> >>But you know me, I don't think every single Jew follows the Talmud. Som=
>e
>> >>do,
>> >>they are racists in every group even Jews but I'm not one of those peop=
>le
>> >>who think just because some Jews have an attitude towards non Jews they=

> al
>> >>do. The same applies to Muslims, Christians etc.
>>
>> > Most Jews don't follow Talmudic law. But those who follow it aren't
>> > racists for doing so. ESPECIALLY when the so-called "quotes from the
>> > Talmud" are all fakeries, like those above.
>>
>> I should have realized that they were just someone's interpretation of th=

>e
>> passages. I feel kind of angry that the author I read miss lead me but
>> perhaps he himself was mislead as well. But that is just what anti Muslim=

>s
>> do, they provide quotes from the Koran out of context or just use their
>> interpretation so I should have realized that anti Semites would use that
>> same trick.
>
>Actually, the antisemitic trick came first. I don't know that I've
>ever seen an extensive list of faked Muslim quotes.

What is "antisemitism"?

What is a "Jew"?

>Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 12:56:59 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 28, 4:21 am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>

>
> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.

Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
Cut'n'Paste.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 1:16:37 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 28, 6:59 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

> In article <4d19d6be$0$12887$a32e1...@newsservers.net>, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> >> What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>
> What is phony here is YOU.
> Simple as that.
> Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.

Over such a "baloon", you and your little buddies are in a world of
difficulty trying to disprove the facts I post. In fact, you don't
even try.

> >They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.

Not even the tractates claimed as their sources exist in the Talmud.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 1:21:59 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 29, 9:42 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

Next time you take a dump, look down at your reflection before
flushing.

Deborah


redux

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 1:36:25 PM12/29/10
to
In article <4f409afa-ccb5-41e9...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 4:21=A0am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
>> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting of th=

>at list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>
>Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
>Cut'n'Paste.

WHICH version of Talmud/Torah?
WHICH information cited does not exist in Talmud/Torah?
Can you quote those?

For one thing, the most valid version is oral, not written.
Because the whole thing is so sick, the most important things
were not written down on paper.

Then there are "pr" versions and you name it.

I'd like to see the version of Talmud you are referring to.
Can I see the link to full text?

>Deborah

redux

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 1:56:10 PM12/29/10
to
In article <81e6e5e9-9940-4588...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <desh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 6:59 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <4d19d6be$0$12887$a32e1...@newsservers.net>, "le mot just "
> <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
>> >> What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> What is phony here is YOU.
>> Simple as that.
>> Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.
>
>Over such a "baloon", you and your little buddies are in a world of
>difficulty trying to disprove the facts I post.

Which "facts"?

From what I see there is no such a concept as facts, honesty and
dignity in your poisoned mind.

There is only "benefit", exploiting situation, perversions, deceit,
lies, disgust and mouth foaming idiocy of denying the undeniable.

In other words, a bankrupt position any way you cut it.

> In fact, you don't
>even try.

How many times do we have to make a request for you to disprove
any quotes posted on this thread, and by now, there was a good
hundred of them.

Where is your deep-you-know-what analysis?

redux

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 2:08:31 PM12/29/10
to
In article <4922b2fa-c613-40f1...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <desh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 9:42=A0am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <51f14153-e5f9-45d7-bc7d-3b8f48b54...@o14g2000prn.googlegroups=
>..com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> >On Dec 27, 10:04=3DA0pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> >> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:3ac02ba3-5f07-4f01...@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com.=
>...=3D

>> >>>>On Dec 22, 11:32 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>> >> >>>>Not all Jews follow the racist Talmud the way not all Muslims foll=
>ow =3D

>> >the
>> >> >>>>fascist Hadith.
>>
>> >> >>"dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote
>> >> >>>The Talmud is not racist.
>>
>> >> >>>"Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that
>> >> >>>whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he
>> >> >>>destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bib=

>le
>> >> >>>considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one
>> >> >>>man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no =
>one
>> >> >>>should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Als=

>o,
>> >> >>>man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One,
>> >> >>>Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they =
>all
>> >> >>>resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed =

>be
>> >> >>>He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them
>> >> >>>resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to
>> >> >>>say, 'The world was created for my sake"'.
>> >> >>>BT Sanhedrin 4:5
>>
>> >> > On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>wrote:
>> >> >>Nice teaching, maybe it's something Jesus would say.
>>
>> >> > Where do you think he would have gotten it?
>>
>> >> >>But:
>> >> >>"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. =
>The=3D

>> >y
>> >> >>are
>> >> >>beasts."
>> >> >>Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
>>
>> >> > What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> >> > Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the
>> >> > technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of
>> >> > this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection
>> >> > Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the
>> >> > sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God,
>> >> > saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this
>> >> > Biblical
>> >> > verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not
>> >> > other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish
>> >> > corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14:
>> >> > "This
>> >> > is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that
>> >> > cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage i=
>> >> > What is going on here is a method of analysis known as a "hekesh," o=
>r
>> >> > in English a "linkage." The verse from the Bible says, "And I made m=

>y
>> >> > sheep (those who follow my commandments) into sheep, my flock into
>> >> > Man." From there, the Sages understand similar usages of the term
>> >> > "Man"
>> >> > to mean the nation which follows the commandments - the Jewish
>> >> > People.
>> >> > The Tosafos in Sanhedrin 59a, points out many times when Gentiles ar=

>e
>> >> > indeed referred to as "Man?"
>> >> > <5ptttd$33...@news.nyu.edu> mat6...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner=

>)
>> >> > RESPONSE (3)
>> >> > This is a mistranslation of the term "adam". Also, the Talmud just
>> >> > has
>> >> > a Rabbi quoting Ezekiel XXXIV, 31 in this place. Nothing is being
>> >> > said
>> >> > about non-Jews not being human or only Jews being human.
>> >> > behre...@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
>> >> > RESPONSE (4)
>> >> > Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the
>> >> > technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of
>> >> > this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection
>> >> > Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the
>> >> > sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God,
>> >> > saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this
>> >> > Biblical
>> >> > verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not
>> >> > other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish
>> >> > corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14:
>> >> > "This
>> >> > is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that
>> >> > cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage i=

>s
>> >> > legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put
>> >> > Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but
>> >> > beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not
>> >> > appear in the original.
>> >> > RESPONSE (5)
>> >> > In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person]
>> >> > dies inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the law=

>s
>> >> > of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.
>> >> > The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to
>> >> > Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person'
>> >> > would
>> >> > indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral
>> >> > tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or
>> >> > 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is
>> >> > usually
>> >> > to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.
>> >> > The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My
>> >> > sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called
>> >> > 'adam' [men],
>> >> > and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".
>> >> > Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this
>> >> > passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern nationa=

>l
>> >> > law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference
>> >> > is
>> >> > not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by
>> >> > that
>> >> > national law code.
>> >> > Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only
>> >> > to
>> >> > Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as
>> >> > follows:
>> >> > "It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the
>> >> > purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who ar=
>e
>> >> > bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound b=
>y
>> >> > the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken fro=

>m
>> >> > Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.
>> >> > Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the contex=
>t
>> >> > is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corps=

>e
>> >> > or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews
>> >> > only (in this way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but
>> >> > when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.
>> >> > With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as
>> >> > follows:
>> >> > "It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a
>> >> > negative
>> >> > context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jew=

>s
>> >> > only, and not to non-Jews".
>> >> > This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in
>> >> > Baba
>> >> > Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed
>> >> > at
>> >> > any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to th=

>e
>> >> > other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out
>> >> > that the application of this principle of interpretation is
>> >> > questionable in any event.
>> >> > Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation
>> >> > is
>> >> > mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also
>> >> > point
>> >> > out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They
>> >> > specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zar=
>a
>> >> > 3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah stud=

>y
>> >> > to the High Priest.
>> >> > Michael Gruda (mgr...@netvision.net.il)
>>
>> >> >>"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to hon=
>or =3D

>> >the
>> >> >>the dog more than the non-Jew."
>> >> >>Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
>>
>> >> > What is an Ereget Raschi Erod cited as a reference? It doesn't
>> >> > exist, therefore the "quote" is another forgery. =3DA0"Akum" specifi=

>cally
>> >> > means idolater. It does not refer to non-Jews in general.
>> >> > Additionally,
>> >> > the writing style is totally inconsistent with writings of this type
>> >> > which are extremely terse and abbreviated since they assume a
>> >> > great deal of prior knowledge.
>>
>> >> >>"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human=
> fo=3D
>> >rm.
>> >> >>It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he =
>wil=3D

>> >l
>> >> >>be
>> >> >>served by animals in human form."
>> >> >>Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
>>
>> >> > I was unable to check this reference in my extensive Judaica library=
>..

>> >> > The book "Midrash Talpioth" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-
>> >> > century Kabbalistic work that is little known and carries no
>> >> > authority
>> >> > whatsoever. Even if the citation were correct (which seems doubtful
>> >> > in
>> >> > light of the other examples on this list, and the fact that Jews
>> >> > never
>> >> > employ the designation "Jehovah"), it is hard to imagine what could
>> >> > be
>> >> > proven from it about Judaism or the Talmud.
>> >> > From Usenet message catamont-2305980759150...@ts003d13.den-
>> >> > co.concentric.net
>>
>> >> > The actual book in question is not part of the Talmud but was
>> >> > written by a Turkish Jew called Elijah ben Solomon Abraham, ha-Koen
>> >> > in
>> >> > the eighteenth century. And it is unlikey that the quote exists give=

>n
>> >> > the other forgeries on this list.
>> >> > David S. Maddison (maddi...@connexus.net.au)
>>
>> >> >>"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
>> >> >>Coschen hamischpat 405
>>
>> >> > The above quote is a wrong inference from a fiscal law in Shulchan
>> >> > Oruch, Choshen Mishpat 405.3, that relates to times when slavery was
>> >> > a
>> >> > standard and accepted practice across the world.
>> >> > It states that if an ox gored a pregnant woman, and this resulted in
>> >> > the loss of the fetus, the owner does not have to pay for the loss o=

>f
>> >> > the fetus (medical expenses and other damages are discussed
>> >> > elsewhere). If an ox gored a pregnant non-Jewish slave-woman, the
>> >> > owner of the ox has to pay for the loss of the fetus to the owner of
>> >> > the slave-woman (because the owner would have had another slave to
>> >> > work for him had the woman given birth). The same applies if the ox
>> >> > gored a pregnant cow, or a sheep, because had the animal given birth=

>,
>> >> > the owner would have had an extra one. The law is clearly hinged on
>> >> > the rights of the owner, and does not compare non-Jews and animals i=

>n
>> >> > any way. It is purely legal, and does not have any philosophical or
>> >> > social implications.
>> >> > I.I.
>> >> >>"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
>> >> >>Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
>>
>> >> > The above quote does not exist in the source. The reference to page
>> >> > 12b in Yalkut Reuveini is meaningless, as the pages are numbered
>> >> > individually, not having "a" and "b" parts.
>> >> > Yalkut does quote from Shnei Luchot Habrit (in Sefer Dovor
>> >> > Shebikdusho, Os Alef), that the souls of two ancient nations (Amoni
>> >> > and Moavi that do not exist now), come from "the spirit of impurity"=

>,
>> >> > but the same goes for the soul of a bastard (mamzer) of Jewish
>> >> > origin.
>> >> > I.I.
>> >> >>"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they c=
>omp=3D

>> >are
>> >> >>with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
>> >> >>Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
>>
>> >> > A complete fabrication. The reference to p.250 b is meaningless
>> >> > (unless "b" stands for "column 2"), as each page is individually
>> >> > numbered. There is no mention of any comparison of Jews to non-Jews
>> >> > on
>> >> > page 250.
>> >> > I.I.
>>
>> >> >>"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
>> >> >>Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
>>
>> >> > This appears to be another forgery, and not only because the given
>> >> > "source" - Tosapoth, Jebamoth - doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> >>"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not
>> >> >>express
>> >> >>sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'you=
>> >> >>"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between ani=
>mal=3D
>> >> > everybody, including a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws (as R. Alb=

>o
>> >> > mentions a few sentences earlier), do not apply to him.
>> >> > I.I.
>>
>> >> >>"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians b=
>elo=3D

>> >ng
>> >> >>to
>> >> >>the denying ones of the Torah."
>> >> >>Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
>>
>> >> > Chosen Hamm's Sixpack?
>>
>> >> > This is from the Shulkan Arukh and applies to Jewish heretics.
>> >> > The following line in this passage is that this law does not apply t=
>o
>> >> > anyone non-Jewish and it is forbidden to harm any gentile. The Jewis=

>h
>> >> > heretics are people which are a potential cause of harm and trouble
>> >> > to
>> >> > the Jewish nation. The penalty is designed to demonstrate the
>> >> > severity
>> >> > with which heretical views were considered, rather than a practical
>> >> > penalty as such penalties were rarely imposed.
>>
>> >> >>"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
>> >> >>Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
>>
>> >> > Avodah Zara 4b does not say this - this is another forgery.
>>
>> >> >>"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing=
> th=3D

>> >e
>> >> >>same as making a sacrifice to God."
>> >> >>Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
>>
>> >> > Midrash Bamidbar Raba 21:
>> >> > "[Numbers 23:11 regarding Phinehas who killed Zimri for fornicating
>> >> > with a Midianite woman] `Because he was zealous for his G-d and
>> >> > atoned
>> >> > for the children of Israel' It says he atoned - did he bring a
>> >> > sacrifice? This teaches us that whoever spills the blood of the
>> >> > wicked
>> >> > is like someone who brings a sacrifice."
>>
>> >> >>But you know me, I don't think every single Jew follows the Talmud. =
>Som=3D
>> >e
>> >> >>do,
>> >> >>they are racists in every group even Jews but I'm not one of those p=
>eop=3D
>> >le
>> >> >>who think just because some Jews have an attitude towards non Jews t=
>hey=3D

>> > al
>> >> >>do. The same applies to Muslims, Christians etc.
>>
>> >> > Most Jews don't follow Talmudic law. But those who follow it aren't
>> >> > racists for doing so. ESPECIALLY when the so-called "quotes from the
>> >> > Talmud" are all fakeries, like those above.
>>
>> >> I should have realized that they were just someone's interpretation of=
> th=3D

>> >e
>> >> passages. I feel kind of angry that the author I read miss lead me but
>> >> perhaps he himself was mislead as well. But that is just what anti Mus=
>lim=3D
>> >s
>> >> do, they provide quotes from the Koran out of context or just use thei=
>r
>> >> interpretation so I should have realized that anti Semites would use t=

>hat
>> >> same trick.
>>
>> >Actually, the antisemitic trick came first. I don't know that I've
>> >ever seen an extensive list of faked Muslim quotes.
>>
>> What is "antisemitism"?
>
>Next time you take a dump, look down at your reflection before
>flushing.

"The DNA tests established that Arya-Brahmins and Jews belong to
the same folks. The basic religion of Jews is Brahmin religion.

According to Venu Paswan that almost all races of the world have longer
head as they evolved through Homo-sapiens and hence are more human.
Whereas Neaderthals are not homosepiens. Jews and Brahmins are
broad-headed and have Neaderthal blood.

As a result both suffer with several physical and psychic disorders.
According to Psychiatric News, the Journal of American Psychiatric
Association, Jews are genetically prone to develop Schizophrenia.

According to Dr. J.S. Gottlieb cause of Schizophrenia among them is
protein disorder alpha-2 which transmits among non-Jews through their
marriages with Jews.

The increase of mental disorders in America is related to increase
in Jewish population.

In 1900 there were 1058135 Jews and 62112 mental patients in America.
In 1970 Jews increased to 5868555 i.e. 454.8% times.
In the same ratio mental patients increased to 339027.

Jews are unable to differentiate between right and wrong,
have aggressive tendencies and dishonesty.
Hence Israel is the worst racist country.

Brahmin doctors themselves say that Brahmins have more mental patients.
Kathmandu medical college of Nepal have 37% Brahmin patients
while their population is only 5%."

-- (Dalit voice, 16-30 April, 2004 p.8-9)

>Deborah
>
>

redux

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 2:23:48 PM12/29/10
to
>On Dec 28, 6:59 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <4d19d6be$0$12887$a32e1...@newsservers.net>, "le mot just "
> <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
>> >> What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> What is phony here is YOU.
>> Simple as that.
>> Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.
>
>Over such a "baloon", you and your little buddies are in a world of
>difficulty trying to disprove the facts I post. In fact, you don't
>even try.
>
>> >They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>
>Not even the tractates claimed as their sources exist in the Talmud.

------------------------------------
"Gentile, who pokes his nose into the Torah,
the sacred Jewish writings, is condemned to death.
Because, as written, it is our heritage, not theirs"

-- Sanhedrin 59a.
------------------------------------

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 2:27:40 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 29, 10:36 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

> In article <4f409afa-ccb5-41e9-94b2-a527e78e5...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 4:21=A0am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> >> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting of th=
> >at list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>
> >> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>
> >Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
> >Cut'n'Paste.
>
> WHICH version of Talmud/Torah?

You tell me: BT or YT?

> WHICH information cited does not exist in Talmud/Torah?

All you claimed existed.

> Can you quote those?

Already did.

> For one thing, the most valid version is oral, not written.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! There is NO "oral Talmud".

> Because the whole thing is so sick, the most important things
> were not written down on paper.

ROTFLMAO!!!! That's what 12thC monks said about its sexual frankness
when discussing marital relations.

> Then there are "pr" versions and you name it.

YOU name some of these so-called "'pr' versions".

> I'd like to see the version of Talmud you are referring to.
> Can I see the link to full text?

ROTFLMAO!!!

There isn't one. But try these:
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/talmudtoc.html

For your purposes, however, rather than the 20-plus volumes of Talmud,
all you need is this:
http://talmud.faithweb.com/

HTH

Deborah

>
> >Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 3:58:50 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 29, 11:23 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

> In article <81e6e5e9-9940-4588-8f74-1c2d64d04...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 28, 6:59 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> >> In article <4d19d6be$0$12887$a32e1...@newsservers.net>, "le mot just "
> > <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> >> >> What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>
> >> What is phony here is YOU.
> >> Simple as that.
> >> Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.
>
> >Over such a "baloon", you and your little buddies are in a world of
> >difficulty trying to disprove the facts I post. In fact, you don't
> >even try.
>
> >> >They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>
> >Not even the tractates claimed as their sources exist in the Talmud.
>
> ------------------------------------
> "Gentile, who pokes his nose into the Torah,
> the sacred Jewish writings, is condemned to death.
> Because, as written, it is our heritage, not theirs"
>
> -- Sanhedrin 59a.
> ------------------------------------

The Accusation
Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is
guilty of death."

The Text
Talmud Sanhedrin 59a
Rabbi Yochanan said: A gentile who studies Torah is liable for death
as it says (Deuteronomy 33:4) "Moses commanded us Torah as a
heritage." It is a heritage for us and not for them... Rabbi Meir
would say: How do we know that even a gentile who engages in the study
of Torah is like a Jewish high priest? As it says (Leviticus 18:5)
"Which man shall do [i.e. study] and by which he shall live [in the
afterlife]." It does not say "priests, Levites, and Israelites" but
"man". We learn from here that even a gentile who engages in the study
of Torah is like a Jewish high priest. [We answer the contradiction
between Rabbi Yochanan's statement and Rabbi Meir's that] there [Rabbi
Meir] is referring to their seven commandments.

Commentary:
The Talmud provides a contradiction between two statements regarding
whether a gentile is allowed to study Torah. The accusation only
quotes one side and does not provide the resolution. By seeing the
whole text and the resolution we can better understand the Talmud's
intent.

What the accusation also does not quote is the passage immediately
preceding ours. The Talmud states that it is forbidden for a gentile
to fully observe the Jewish Sabbath and holidays. While this does not
seem as conspiratorial as the prohibition against studying Torah it is
still curious. Why should it be? The explanation is tied to the
Talmud's resolution to the contradiction between Rabbi Yochanan and
Rabbi Meir. The Talmud concludes that both rabbis agree but one was
stating that a gentile is forbidden to study the parts of Torah that
discuss the commandments relating specifically to Jews and the other
was stating that a gentile is highly praised for studying the parts of
Torah that discuss the commandments that relate to him. In other
words, a gentile should be concerned with his role in G-d's world. He
should actively pursue his place in the divine plan and attempt to
raise himself to the highest human levels. However, as a righteous
gentile, he must confine himself to HIS role and not someone else's
role. When he starts studying about Jewish commandments and observing
Jewish holidays, he is stepping out of his role as a righteous gentile
and entering the role of a Jew. This is as inappropriate as if a Jew
would start acting in the role of a righteous gentile. We all have our
roles in the world and it is wrong to try to side-step those roles. A
gentile can become a Jew through conversion but a righteous gentile is
righteous in his own right and is forbidden to try to over-step his
role.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/short.html

It says (Job 37:23): "With justice and an abundance of kindness, He
does not deal harshly." G-d does not withhold reward from gentiles who
perform His commandments.
YT Peah 1:1

Rabbi Meir would say: How do we know that even a gentile who engages
in the study of Torah is like a Jewish high priest? We learn from the
verse (Leviticus 18:5) "which man (HaAdam=the man) shall do [i.e.
study] and by which he shall live [in the afterlife]."
BT Avodah Zarah 3a

Righteous gentiles have a place in the world to come.
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 >BT Sanhedrin 105a

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 3:59:39 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 29, 11:08 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

"Brahmin" is a caste, not a religion.

Deborah

Seon

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 4:01:48 PM12/29/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51f14153-e5f9-45d7...@o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

The trick is to take a quote out of the Koran but not provide the full
context of it. People do it to the Bible as well. So I should have realized
they do it to the Jews as well.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 4:04:11 PM12/29/10
to
On Dec 29, 10:56 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:

> In article <81e6e5e9-9940-4588-8f74-1c2d64d04...@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 6:59 am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> >> In article <4d19d6be$0$12887$a32e1...@newsservers.net>, "le mot just "
> > <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> >> >> What, another posting of that list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>
> >> What is phony here is YOU.
> >> Simple as that.
> >> Just a baloon, a mouth foaming ZioNazi.
>
> >Over such a "baloon", you and your little buddies are in a world of
> >difficulty trying to disprove the facts I post.
>
> Which "facts"?

All of them.


>
> From what I see there is no such a concept as facts, honesty and
> dignity in your poisoned mind.

Operative phrase: "From what I see". In that case, you're blind.

> > In fact, you don't
> >even try.
>
> How many times do we have to make a request for you to disprove
> any quotes posted on this thread, and by now, there was a good
> hundred of them.

Already have. It's quite easy, since you dumb antisemites have been
posting the same junk for years.

> Where is your deep-you-know-what analysis?

A parsec or two over your pointy little head.

Deborah

redux

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 12:58:57 AM12/30/10
to
In article
<0e66316c-5189-4691...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi
<desh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 10:36=A0am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <4f409afa-ccb5-41e9-94b2-a527e78e5...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.=

>com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 28, 4:21=3DA0am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
>> >> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting of=
> th=3D

>> >at list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> >> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>>
>> >Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
>> >Cut'n'Paste.
>>
>> WHICH version of Talmud/Torah?
>
>You tell me: BT or YT?
>
>> WHICH information cited does not exist in Talmud/Torah?
>
>All you claimed existed.

Sure. That's the thing with people like you.
You will deny it to the point beyond obsene.

>> Can you quote those?
>
>Already did.

Nope.

DoD

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 1:12:59 AM12/30/10
to
On Dec 22, 4:12 pm, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:35 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 12:23 am, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 11:10 pm, Mo <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > On Dec 20, 4:33 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Mo" <morrisseybr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:e774d1a4-540a-4ad5...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> > > > > > On Dec 20, 12:31 pm, "Dug" <andxor...@gggmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:407ac2ea-ea79-4709...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "_ G O D _" <DEMI...@SHAW.CA> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > If it weren't for the COck-sucking sectarian retards
> > > > > > > > with their semitism and the antagonism toward the
> > > > > > > > followers of competing religious cults (which being
> > > > > > > > exploited by the despots for ongoing perpetuation
> > > > > > > > of gulag economy), that is feeding the judophobia,
> > > > > > > > there couldn't be stupid "questions for Jew-haters"....
>
> > > > > > > [snip stream-of-conscious wambling]
>
> > > > > > > Stupid questions are the only kind your sort understands.
>
> > > > > > > Deborah
>
> > > > > > > *************************
> > > > > > > Yep, I wouldn't want to get on Deb's bad side.
>
> > > > > > Why not, Dug? All Ms. Sharavi has ever shown us on this newsgroup is
> > > > > > incoherent rancour and low-level invective, and a truly staggering
> > > > > > degree of credulity. She is a True Believer in the Zionist project;
> > > > > > sixty years ago she would have been a devout Stalinist, and forty
> > > > > > years ago she would have been one of the madder Maoists.
>
> > > > > > *************************
> > > > > > I trust her sources a lot more than her opponents. After all
> > > > > > Al Jazeera, the Palestinian Times, Stormfront
>
> > > > > Good one, Doug! Thought you could slip that one past everyone, did
> > > > > you? Stormfront is a Nazi publication, which makes it totally
> > > > > different to Al Jazeera and the Palestinian Times. Are you trying to
> > > > > besmirch the opposition to Israel by making false, invidious
> > > > > comparisons? Yes, you are, you silly fellow!
>
> > > > Do you normally make yourself out to being a jackass?
>
> > > Hey, guys, I've got a stalker? Could someone with a bit of class take
> > > over from this bloke? He's out of his depth.
>
> > Actually, it's you who's in over his head. It's long past the time
> > when you should have sent out an SOS.
>
> > Deborah
>
> Ha! Is that your idea of a riposte? Still, you've refrained from your
> standard torrent of racist abuse on this occasion, which is
> encouraging.-

What do you think you deserve? You are like all the other cretins
around
here.. You don't deserve anything else...Now go and ponder about where
your parents went wrong with you.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:16:53 PM12/30/10
to
On Dec 29, 9:58 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> In article
> <0e66316c-5189-4691-9f07-d1d0abd0f...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi

>
>
>
> <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 10:36=A0am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> >> In article <4f409afa-ccb5-41e9-94b2-a527e78e5...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.=
> >com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 28, 4:21=3DA0am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
> >> >> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting of=
> > th=3D
> >> >at list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>
> >> >> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>
> >> >Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
> >> >Cut'n'Paste.
>
> >> WHICH version of Talmud/Torah?
>
> >You tell me: BT or YT?

So? Which version was it, the BT or the YT?


>
> >> WHICH information cited does not exist in Talmud/Torah?
>
> >All you claimed existed.
>
> Sure. That's the thing with people like you.
> You will deny it to the point beyond obsene.

And YOU people will continue to post the same mindless lies to the
point beyond humour.


>
> >> Can you quote those?
>
> >Already did.
>
> Nope.
>

Sure I did. It's not MY fault you have a reading comprehension
disability, which, in tandem with your typical antisemitic ignorance
about Jews and Judaism, make for your (unintentionally) amusing posts.
Just look at the following responsa <g>:

redux

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:21:15 PM12/30/10
to
In article <293741cb-18c9-4c90...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 29, 9:58=A0pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article
>> <0e66316c-5189-4691-9f07-d1d0abd0f...@c13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, dsha=
>ravi
>>
>>
>>
>> <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 10:36=3DA0am, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> >> In article <4f409afa-ccb5-41e9-94b2-a527e78e5...@r8g2000prm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D

>> >com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 28, 4:21=3D3DA0am, "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote:
>> >> >> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What, another posting=
> of=3D
>> > th=3D3D

>> >> >at list of phony "quotes"? <heavy sigh>
>>
>> >> >> They are not phony quotes. They exist in the filthy Talmud.
>>
>> >> >Not even the tractates cited exist in the Talmud. Try again, Massa
>> >> >Cut'n'Paste.
>>
>> >> WHICH version of Talmud/Torah?
>>
>> >You tell me: BT or YT?
>
>So? Which version was it, the BT or the YT?
>>
>> >> WHICH information cited does not exist in Talmud/Torah?
>>
>> >All you claimed existed.
>>
>> Sure. That's the thing with people like you.
>> You will deny it to the point beyond obsene.
>
>And YOU people will continue to post the same mindless lies to the
>point beyond humour.
>>
>> >> Can you quote those?
>>
>> >Already did.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>Sure I did. It's not MY fault you have a reading comprehension
>disability, which, in tandem with your typical antisemitic ignorance
>about Jews and Judaism, make for your (unintentionally) amusing posts.
>Just look at the following responsa <g>:

Seid Heil!

-----------------------------

Happy and joyful holiday Purim

"Another point about morality, related to the Jewish holidays.
Most of them take their origin in the Torah.
Take, for example, the most beloved by adults and children, happy
and joyous holiday of Purim.
On this day, Jew is allowed to get drunk instill his nose goes blue.

"Over 500 years before Christ, in Persia, the Jews conducted the pogroms
[mass murder] of the local population, men, women and children.
Just in two days, they have destroyed 75 thousand unarmed people,
who could not even resist the armed attackers, the Jews.
The Minister Haman and his ten sons were hanged. It was not a battle of
soldiers, not a victory of the Jews in a battle,
but a mass slaughter of people and their children.

"There is no nation on Earth, that would have fun celebrating the
clearly unlawful massacres. Ivan, the hundred million, you know what
the Jews have on the tables on that day? Tell him, a Jew.

"On the festive table, triangular pastries, called homentashen,
which symbolizes the ears of minister Haman, and the Jews eat them
with joy.

Also on the table are other pies, called kreplah (Ibid), filled with
minced meat, symbolizing the meat of Haman's body, also being eaten
with great appetite.

If some normal person comes to visit them on that day, and learns
what it all symbolizes, he would have to run out on the street to
get some fresh air.

"This repulsive celebration, with years, inoculates their children
in their hearts and minds, with blood-lust, hatred and suspicion
against the Russian, Ukrainian and other peoples.

"Why do not Ukrainians begin to celebrate similar events, that
occurred in Ukraine in the 17th century. At that time Jews have
made a bargain with the local gentry for the right to collect taxes
from the peasantry.

They began to take from the peasants six times more than pans
(landlords) took. [That is 600% inflation in one day].

"One part of it they gave to pans, and the other 5 parts kept for
themselves. The peasants were ruined. The uprising against the Poles
and Jews was headed by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. [one of the greatest
national heroes in the history of Ukraine.]

"Today, Jews are being told that tens of thousands of Jews were
destroyed. If we take the example of the Jews, the Ukrainians should
have a holiday and celebrate such an event, and have the festive pies
on the table: "with ears of the Jews", "with meat of the Jews".

"Even if Ukrainian wanted to do so, he simply could not do it.
Because you need to have bloodthirsty rotten insides and utter
absence of love for people, your surroundings and nature."

-----------------------------

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:26:05 PM12/30/10
to

Do you think his parents ever asked him to run away from home? or
didn't they have any children who lived and were NOT oxygen-deprived
at birth?

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:53:39 PM12/30/10
to
On Dec 30, 3:51 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> In article <583e7e16-cc73-45ce-8b66-33cb8a2c2...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Of course. And aren't there Xian and Muslims and persons of other
> >> > faiths who don't want to marry outside it?
>
> >> That is an example of religious biggotry
>
> >Not necessarily. In some cases, it's more about birds of a feather
> >flocking together. Or, as Tevye put it: "A bird may love a fish. But
> >where would they build a home?"
>
> >>but why don't Jews want to marry
> >> someone outside their faith? Is it really because of religion? And why?
>
> >At least they don't get executed for it.
>
> -------------------------------

> "The responsibility for the last World War [WW I] rests solely
> upon the shoulders of the international financiers.
> [read ZioNazis]
>
> It is upon them that rests the blood of millions of dead
> and millions of dying."
>
> (Congressional Record, 67th Congress, 4th Session,
> Senate Document No. 346)

Hoy, Redoodoo? Got any REAL quotes to offer? Such as the following?

"In this agreement, which will allow the Palestinians
to manage their own affairs, the following assurances
are made (by the Palestinians) to Israel:
Unified Jerusalem will remain under Israeli control,
and the body that will be the administrative
authority of the Palestinians in the territories shall
have no authority there."
- Yitzhak Rabin, 21 September 1993

"These are the main changes, not all of them,
which we envision and want in the permanent
solution:
"First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will
Include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the
capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while
preserving the rights of the members of the other
faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access
and freedom of worship in their holy places, according
to the customs of their faiths."
- Yitzhak Rabin, 1994

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, Public Law 104-45, 104th
Congress, effective 8th November 1995:
[...]
(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict
known as the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by
Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full
access to holy sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been
administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have
been respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent
Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress " strongly believes
that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of
every ethnic and religious group are protected".

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives
unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One
Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the
reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment
that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
[...]

House Resolution Commemorating 30th Anniversary of Reunification
Jerusalem
House Resolution 60
June 10, 1997
WHEREAS for 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the focal point of
Jewish religious devotion;
WHEREAS Jerusalem today is also considered a holy city by members
of the Christian and Muslim faiths;
WHEREAS there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem
for three millennia and a Jewish majority in the city since the
1840's;
WHEREAS the once thriving Jewish majority of the historic Old City
of Jerusalem was driven out by force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War;
WHEREAS from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli
citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were
denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan;
WHEREAS in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during the
conflict known as the Six Day War;
WHEREAS since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city, and persons
of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy
sites within the city;
WHEREAS this year marks the 30th year that Jerusalem has been
administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have
been respected and protected;
WHEREAS in 1990 the United States Senate and House of
Representatives overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution
106 and House Concurrent Resolution 290 declaring that
Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, `must remain an undivided city'
and calling on Israel and the Palestinians to undertake
negotiations to resolve their differences;
WHEREAS Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel later cited Senate
Concurrent Resolution 106 as having `helped our neighbors reach the
negotiating table' to produce the historic Declaration of Principles
on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed in Washington,
D.C. on September 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45),
which became law on November 8, 1995, states as a matter of United
States policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of
Israel: Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
That the Congress--

(1) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of
Israel on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of that historic
city;
(2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city
in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected
as they have been by Israel during the past 30 years;
(3) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to affirm
publicly as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must
remain
the undivided capital of the State of Israel; and
(4) urges United States officials to refrain from any actions that
contradict this policy.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1997.
-----------------------------------

Those are the kind of quotes I mean, rather than phony quotes from
long-dead Communists on the other side of the world.

Deborah

>
> -------------------------------
>
> >> Christians and Muslims accept the Jewish prophets and not all Muslims are
> >> anti Semitic. Just the fundamentalists.
>
> >I would say that antisemitism isn't confined solely to Muslim
> >fundamentalists, or Christian fundamentalists. And no, neither
> >Christians nor Muslims accept the Jewish prophets -- for what they
> >were.
>
> >> Some don't realize their prophet was
> >> a warlord who had Jews murdered.
>
> >Some do, some don't. It was dressed up in some tale of non-existent
> >treachery, to give him (and his successors) an excuse. That's why
> >there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia, and haven't been since they were
> >massacred and expelled 13 centuries ago.


dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:56:27 PM12/30/10
to
On Dec 30, 4:21 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
[ snip fake quotes from unidentified "source"]

Before pasting more fake "quotes" from unidentified "sources", have
you anything to add to the corrections of your previous errors, above
and below?

Deborah

redux

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:04:06 PM12/30/10
to
In article <b87c2f7f-b992-4484...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <desh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 3:51=A0pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
>> In article <583e7e16-cc73-45ce-8b66-33cb8a2c2...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.=

>com>, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Of course. And aren't there Xian and Muslims and persons of other
>> >> > faiths who don't want to marry outside it?
>>
>> >> That is an example of religious biggotry
>>
>> >Not necessarily. In some cases, it's more about birds of a feather
>> >flocking together. Or, as Tevye put it: "A bird may love a fish. But
>> >where would they build a home?"
>>
>> >>but why don't Jews want to marry
>> >> someone outside their faith? Is it really because of religion? And why=

ZioNazi lies and fabrications they are.
There have been plenty of UN resolutions as to the nature
of all this sickness.

But ZioNazis could care less about UN resolutions and flaterly
refuse to follow ANY UN resolution.

The amount of weapons of mass destruction and Israel's nuclear
arsenal is enough to wipe out the entire region.

All this is is a history of the most outrageous disgust.

Simple as that.

ALL lies.
Every single dot and comma of it.
ALL violence the ZioNazi style.

ALL bought and paid for.

>Deborah
>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> >> Christians and Muslims accept the Jewish prophets and not all Muslims =

Seon

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:05:14 PM12/30/10
to

"dsharavi" <desh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b87c2f7f-b992-4484...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Oops the link I meant to post was http://www.faithfreedom.org/ that link was
for a debate I'm in. Hopefully you'll read this.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:17:04 PM12/30/10
to
On Dec 30, 4:34 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> In article <4ff63d6d-6a39-463d-a304-67fad55cf...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 30, 12:34 pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> "redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ifh7i4$d0p$2...@tornado.tornevall.net...
>
> >> > In article <gtudndoKy4ycPobQnZ2dnUVZ_rSdn...@westnet.com.au>, "Seon"
> >> > <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> >>"redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >>news:iff4gt$qme$3...@tornado.tornevall.net...
> >> >>> In article <EuGdnfS9JtgE1IfQnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@westnet.com.au>, "Seon"
> >> >>> <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>"le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:4d19d92e$0$12835$a32e...@newsservers.net...
>
> >> >>>>> "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>news:_72dnSr7oOum4oTQ...@westnet.com.au...
>
> >> >>>>>> "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>news:4d19771f$0$29022$a32e...@newsservers.net...
>
> >> >>>>>>> "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>news:RcCdnTCPnb9j14TQ...@westnet.com.au...

>
> >> >>>>>>>> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:ea96fbec-bcb1-4cff...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 1:19 am, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> "le mot just " <l...@tcom.fr> wrote in
> >> >>>>>>>>>> messagenews:4d12fd7e$0$11615$a32e...@newsservers.net...
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> > "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >news:lMmdncqOX6KKZo_Q...@westnet.com.au...
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> All too true. I can't maintain that level of rage and anger,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> even
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> my loathsome Evil Relatives.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> Deborah
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Not me but Doug and those on the other extreme do it all the
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> time.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Then
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> there is their ignorance...
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> > If ignorance is directly relative to standards of education (or
> >> >>>>>>>>>> > lack
> >> >>>>>>>>>> > thereof) you are one of the most ignorant persons currently
> >> >>>>>>>>>> > posting.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, you support "Palestine"
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Support? He has his nose firmly in their brown regions.
>
> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, people like him judge Israel with one set of standards
> >> >>>>>>>> but
> >> >>>>>>>> don't apply those standards to other countries. Like when Hamas
> >> >>>>>>>> terrorists target women and children in Israel.
>
> >> >>>>>>> Hamas do not target women and children in israel. They target
> >> >>>>>>> military
> >> >>>>>>> personnel and their attacks are always in retaliation of earlier Jew
> >> >>>>>>> atrocities meted out against Arab civilians.
>
> >> >>>>>>> You really need to stop lying. Or at least stop swallowing the very
> >> >>>>>>> convincing lies of the Jews.
>
> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Is...
> >> >>>>8
>
> >> >>>>>> Yep I'm sure all of those were aimed at "Military targets"
>
> >> >>>>> Yes they are. All attacks are against IDF personnel and those
> >> >>>>> personnel
> >> >>>>> live and work among the civilian population.
>
> >> >>>>> The greatest use of civilians as shields ever seen.
>
> >> >>>>Of course! And the Hamas charter doesn't call for the destruction of
> >> >>>>Israel
> >> >>>>and for Islam to be the dominant religion in "Palestine"
>
> >> >>> You have no business to define what should be "the dominant religion"
> >> >>> in "Palestine". Except those quotes around Palestine belong to "Israel".
>
> >> >>The UN never approved Palestine, they approved Israel. FACT.
>
> >> > There exists no law allowing to take the land from natives
> >> > and create a country out of it for others.
>
> >> Which "Natives" had their land taken before the 1948 Arab-Israel war?
>
> >Jews.
>
> There is no such people as Jews, you mouth foaming disinformation
> peddler.

rotfl
Better tell that to the world's 13.4 million Yehudim, lol.

> There is no such a thing as a star of David.

rotf

Judaism 101 - Signs and Symbols - Magein David

The symbol of intertwined equilateral triangles is a common one in
the Middle East and North Africa, and is thought to bring good luck.
It appears occasionally in early Jewish artwork, but never as an
exclusively Jewish symbol. The nearest thing to an "official" Jewish
symbol at the time was the menorah.

In the middle ages, Jews often were required to wear badges to
identify themselves as Jews, much as they were in Nazi Germany, but
these Jewish badges were not always the familiar Magen David. For
example, a fifteenth century painting by Nuno Goncalves features a
rabbi wearing a six-pointed badge that looks more or less like an
asterisk.

In the 17th century, it became a popular practice to put Magen Davids
on the outside of synagogues, to identify them as Jewish houses of
worship in much the same way that a cross identified a Christian house
of worship
http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm

> That start came into being milleniums later.
> ALL the "Jewish" history is lies and fabrications.
> Simple as that.

VERY simple, hence its appeal value to cretins.

> Yes, there are Hebrews. There are Hassids.
> But not the Chabad "hassids". Those are as much Hassids
> as you being a Martian.

rotfl

Tell that to Chabad Portland, Chabad of Salem, Chabad of Hillsboro,
Chabad of Clark County, Chabad of Oregon, and so on. And don't forget
the Chabad Lubavitchers ("one of the world's larger and best-known
Hasidic movements").

See:
http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article_cdo/aid/36226/jewish/About-Chabad-Lubavitch.htm

Chassidus
http://www.chassidus.net/

Hasidism.info -- the user-friendly FAQ on Hasidism (Chassidism)
[Breslover Chassidus]
http://upstel.net/~rooster/hasid1.html

Judaism 101 - Movements of Judaism - Chasidim and Mitnagdim

In the 1700s, the first of the modern movements developed in Eastern
Europe. This movement, known as Chasidism, was founded by Israel ben
Eliezer, more commonly known as the Baal Shem Tov or the Besht. Before
Chasidism, Judaism emphasized education as the way to get closer to G-
d. Chasidism emphasized other, more personal experiences and mysticism
as alternative routes to G-d.

Chasidism was considered a radical movement at the time it was
founded. There was strong opposition from those who held to the pre-
existing view of Judaism. Those who opposed Chasidism became known as
mitnagdim (opponents), and disputes between the Chasidim and the
mitnagdim were often brutal. Today, the Chasidim and the mitnagdim are
relatively unified in their opposition to the liberal modern
movements. Orthodoxy and even the liberal movements of Judaism today
have been strongly influenced by Chasidic teachings.

Chasidic sects are organized around a spiritual leader called a Rebbe
or a tzaddik, a person who is considered to be more enlightened than
other Jews. A Chasid consults his Rebbe about all major life
decisions.

Chasidism continues to be a vital movement throughout the world. The
Lubavitcher Chasidim are very vocal with a high media presence (see
their website, Chabad.org), but there are many other active Chasidic
sects today. For a simple, plain English introduction to Chasidism
written by a modern Breslover Chasid, check out this FAQ on Hasidic
Culture and Customs.
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/hasid1.html
Judaism 101 - Movements
http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm

HTH

Deborah

> >> >>And yes you're right, I have no right to define what should be the
> >> >>dominant
> >> >>religion. The people of Israel do and every major religion has equal
> >> >>rights
> >> >>in Israel, unlike in your precious Islamonazi countries.
>
> >> > That is not what we are talking about here.
>
> >> Yes we are don't define what we're talking about. We were talking about
> >> religion and in Israel there is religious freedom but not in Muslim
> >> countries.

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:27:27 PM12/30/10
to
> >> >"redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote

> >> >> You have no business to define what should be "the dominant religion"
> >> >> in "Palestine". Except those quotes around Palestine belong to "Israel=
> >".

>
> > >"Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> >The UN never approved Palestine, they approved Israel. FACT.

>dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Fact: the UNGA never approved Israel (except its entrance to the UN);
> >the GA approved the partition of Western Palestine into an Arab state
> >and a Jewish state. It was the second partition of Palestine; the
> >first was made by the British, when they created the first Arab state
> >in Palestine, the Emirate of Transjordan, and prohibited Jews from
> >settling there.

> >re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> >> There exists no law allowing to take the land from natives
> >> and create a country out of it for others.
>

> >The UN didn't do that when it approved the partition of Western
> >Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. 27 years earlier,
> >Arab leaders had already agreed that that region had never been Arab.
>
> >> >And yes you're right, I have no right to define what should be the domin=
> >ant
> >> >religion. The people of Israel do and every major religion has equal rig=


> >hts
> >> >in Israel, unlike in your precious Islamonazi countries.
>
> >> That is not what we are talking about here.
>

> >What you're spouting about is MOTSS.
>
On Dec 30, 4:30 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> Crap. UTTER crap.
>
> Those lands were partitioned by the people that have NOTHING to do
> with any of it.

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia, and other countries, were
created by people who had NOTHING to do with any of it. Ditto the
British Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq), the British Mandate for
Palestine (Jordan, Israel), the French Mandate for Syria (Syria,
Lebano, and Hatay - the last ceded to Turkey); the Belgian Mandate for
Ruanda-Urundi (Rwanda, Burundi), the British Mandate for Tanganyika
(Tanzania), the British Mandate for Cameroon and the French Mandate
for (French) Cameroun; the British Mandate for Togoland (Ghana) and
the French Mandate for Togoland (Autonomous Republic of Togo, Ghana):
the the British/Australian Mandate for North East New Guinea (Papua
New Guinea); the British/Australian Mandate New Guinea (Nauru), the
New Zealand/UK Mandate for German Samoa (Western Samoa), fand the
Japanese Mandate for the South Pacific.

> The borders were completely artificial.

So were the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia, and the
Gulf Protectorates.

> There is this "Churchil elbow" thing. When drawing these artificial
> borders in London, the Churchil elbow slipped, and so we have the
> borders as we know it now.

lol
Churchill had nothing to do with the borders of the British Mandate
for Palestine -- or any of the other British Mandated Territories.

> The real deal was a conspiracy between the ZioNazis and Brits
> where ZioNazis promised to end the WWI by getting the Americans
> involved.

America declared war on Germany seven months before Balfour was
issued, in response to German attacks on American shipping and
American civilians.

>In exchange, the Brits had to make a promise, utterly
> fake one, that they do not mine a creation of Israel on the
> Palestinian lands.

And where, exactly, do the British promise not to "ine a creation of
Israel on the Palestinian lands"? Particularly, as there was no
administrative district in the Ottoman Empire called "Palestine".

> The Balfore Declaration - an utterly meaningless piece of paper
> signifying nothing recognizable as something valid under any law
> of any land.

However that may be -- or NOT, as the case is -- Balfour was
incorporated into the Articles of the Palestine Mandate -- and that
was a very meaningful LoN piece of paper.

Deborah

dsharavi

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:33:11 PM12/30/10
to
On Dec 30, 4:41 pm, re...@nowhere.invalid (redux) wrote:
> In article <f807738b-00ab-40d3-b955-ebb2707e2...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >On Dec 30, 12:36=A0pm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> "redux" <re...@nowhere.invalid> wrote
> >> > Some of my best friends are Jews and some of the best managers
> >> > at the companies I had contract with were Jews.
>
> >lol
>
> >> I like that "Some of my best friends are Jews" defense.
>
> >It's SOP for Jew haters.
>
> That is about the ONLY "argument" you have left.
>
> When everything else fails, and you, just as programmed,
> still have to argue, even as they pull the rope over your neck,
> you start squilling - "Jew haters, Jew haters, anti-Semites,
> anti-Semites".
>
> But what IS Semites?
> WHO are Semites?

Sem·ite
noun
\ˈse-ˌmīt, especially British ˈsē-ˌmīt\
Definition of SEMITE
1
a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern
Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a
descendant of these peoples
2
: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Origin of SEMITE
French sémite, from Sem Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek Sēm, from
Hebrew Shēm
First Known Use: 1848

> What defines Semites?

Mostly #2 above.

> What are "Jews"?

The people you yourself are addicted to hating.

> What are the facts about the Jews?

Many -- none of which you have. And now you have provided a perfect
example of your idiotic ignorance:

> (I call them Jews to you,
> because they are known as "Jews". I don't call them Jews
> myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews", because I know
> what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per
> cent of the world's population of those people who call
> themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a
> warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they
> were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia
> into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of
> 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor
> did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom
> was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so
> powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war,
> the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big
> and powerful they were.
>
> They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not
> want to go into the details of that now. But that was their
> religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and
> barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became
> so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he
> decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either
> Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism,
> which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out
> "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism.
> And that became the state religion. He sent down to the
> Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up
> thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and
> schools, and his people became what we call "Jews".
>
> There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put
> a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but
> back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they
> come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed
> insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help
> repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their
> ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave
> you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to
> church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew,
> and we're Jews."
>
> But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the
> same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call
> them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54
> million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in
> 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted
> Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000
> miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's
> birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call
> themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics.
> Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs
> must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a
> belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the
> Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped
> them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop
> of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They
> were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as
> a religious faith.
>
> These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these
> Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of
> Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the
> Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the
> same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to
> be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the
> Khazars became what we call today "Jews".

rotflmao

Obviously the Freedman clown was hard put to explain the Jewish
communities of southern Europe and North Africa which had existed
since the 1stC CE -- and some of them prior thereto.

Deborah


Anonymous

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 10:05:17 PM12/30/10
to

"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99c80535-8f36-4d62...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

None of which justifies the Jew's unilateral theft of Palestine. Nor does it
justify the Jew's ongoing regime of brutality, terrorism ad opression
against the people of the Middle East.

The world was a much happier, safer and secure place before Israel was
illegaly created.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages