You are here

Israel desperately seeks war with Iran

With Saddam out of the way, israel throws all its weight into jumpstarting a war with Iran.

In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors.

We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran."

In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."

As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran.

For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US.

We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran.

In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."

Based on the urgency of General Tira's extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America.

By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics.

Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent.

Neither does General Tira realize that the Republican Party is no longer unified in its support of President Bush's deeply unpopular war in Iraq or his plans for expanding the war by a sustained bombing campaign against Iran. Since General Tira did not publish any remarks about the Iraq Study Group headed by former US Secretary of State, James Baker, he may be oblivious to the political facts now in place in 2007 America.

Instead of the bipartisan commitment to broaden Bush's unpopular war as General Tira proposes, there is now a broadening bipartisan movement to reign in the US losses in Iraq. No major American politician has voiced any enthusiasm for broadening Bush's war into Iran as General Tira beseeches the US to do.

General Tira's outburst suggests that the official channels for news and the analysis of public affairs in Israel are not working as efficiently as they should in the 21st century. Perhaps, someone should provide the General with a subscription to Ha'aretz and the International Herald Tribune for starters.

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

Michael Carmichael is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Planetary Movement, Oxford, United Kingdom

Expect a ruthless last ditch attempt by israel to plunge the world headlong into war.

_______________

Thanks, Cherifa

Comments

...seem to often depend on other people's armies to achieve their goals.

Zion was about to bring America into the war against Egypt in 1967 when it tried to sink the USS Liberty. Since then it's been using political/monetary power in the US to bring about the foreign policies it needs, which includes America invading Iraq, threatening Syria and Iran, and treating Lebanese and Palestinian resistance as terrorism. Not to mention putting sanctions on Iraq and starving the Palestinian people.

(Also, using false flag terror to defame Libya and isolate it internationally til recently, heck, the list goes on and on).

MonkeyZerg

The way I see it, all the cards are in Israel's and Bush's hands, regardless of what Congress says. Israel and / or Bush could easily order a strike on a U.S. ship, blame it on Iran, and launch a full-scale war with a military draft if necessary. No one could stop it. If the result is a global economic depression, the Jewish bankers will buy everything for pennnies on the dollar, as they've done many times in the past. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I believe we're doomed.

Israel's Delek Belron International, a unit of Delek Real Estate, said its foreign subsidiaries had agreed with partners to acquire 47 hotels managed by the Marriott hotel chain in Britain.

Delek Belron's share of the deal will be 17 per cent. It did not name its partners but the Globes financial newspaper said on its website they included other Israeli companies such as Electra Real Estate and businessman Egal Ahouvi.

The vendor is reported by Bloomberg to be the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The acquiring companies have secured a long-term loan of STG856.1 million ($A2.13 billion).

The financing bank, which was not named, has also agreed to finance up to STG62.2 million ($A155.0 million) for additional investments in the hotels in the coming years.

The acquirers will have to provide STG202.7 million ($A505.11 million) in shareholders' capital for the purchase, Delek said in a statement to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

The financing bank will be entitled to 20 per cent of the profits from the sale of the hotels in the future.

Last month, Delek Belron said the cost of the hotels in England, Scotland and Wales, which have a total of 8,456 rooms, would be about $2 billion. Marriott agreed to manage the hotels for 30 years and has an option to extend the deal for another 10 years.

Delek said income after expenses from the hotels is forecast to average STG78 million ($A194.4 million) a year over the next 10 years.

The deal is due to be completed on March 30, 2007.

Delek Belron invests in real estate development and revenue-producing properties in western countries.

Conglomerate Delek Group, which has holdings in the energy, automotive and real estate sectors, owns 90.5 per cent of Delek Real Estate.

That settles it - I won't be staying at the Marriott anymore.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

The AIPAC money that buys our congress was our tax money to start with. I don't want my tax dollars used to destroy the interests of the "commmon man" of my country or any other country. Another useless and illegal war would serve none, except the criminals who would profit on arms sales. (and they are criminals)

I am a peaceful man as are most people, if you want peace and prosperity for your children then you must wake up, speak up, and spread the truth.

Speak about it with your family and friends. Find out the truth. Listen to your gut, it will guide you to the truth.

The party is OVER U.S.A.,Canada,Mexico this unfair and mendacious way of life of the rich and powerful bankers is not going to continue. The killing of SH is a clear signal. 6 billion more or less are on the death list so the rich can win by default. (read DU chem weapons use)

The party is over Mr Richie Rich Bum! we are going to see your house collapse! And the party afterwards is going to be a WHOPPER!!

Palestine IS coming.

---

First you take D.C. Then you take New York :)

General Tira said something involving the idea that, "...an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence." I understand him to be saying Israel is threatened by Iran, but Israel is incapable of protecting itself.

One of the arguments about this is that the United States should not be attacking Iran in order to do Israel any favors. The reason for this is that Iran does not threaten the United States. Instead, we are told, an attack on Iran, as well as our attack on Iraq, is actually hurting the United States.

Apparently, this argument or one along the same vein has been effective. In response the General has added,

"...General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries..."

The idea here, I believe, is that even if the United States would reject attacking Iran because it would not be in America's interest to do so, the Europeans could argue that such an attack would be in their interests.

I am not sure what these Europeans could argue. How could an attack on Iran be in their interest? Perhaps they could be told that they are threatened by Iran no less than Israel. I wonder about this. Does Iran threaten to keep it's oil from European markets? I was under the impression that Iran was dumping petro-dollars in favor of the Euro. That does not seem like threatening behavior.

Maybe something could be made of the idea that Islam is making itself a nuisance in Europe as the number of immigrants increases. Is there some kind of danger being hatched out of Iran using the Islamic populations? I would think Iran would have no interest in undermining the governments of Europe. Perhaps the Iranians would be interested in giving away some oil to poor neighborhoods in strategic countries, much like Chavez in Venezuela has given heating oil to poor neighborhoods in the United States.

The General also says,

"We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran...."

I wonder if this is related to the recent resignation of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

I would think Saudi Arabia has no interest in pissing off the Iranians in order to do Israel favors. I'd think both the Saudis and the Iranians would want to avoid the horror of Iraq. You'd think the Saudis would see that Bush kills whatever he touches.

Carmichael goes on to say that Tira has failed to see that the Republican Party has divisions of its own and that the American people have turned against Bush's efforts to do whatever he's doing in Iraq and invade Iran.

If it is obvious now that attacking Iran is not in America's interest, I wonder what the Republicans were thinking when they went into Iraq and contemplated Iran. It would be easy to say that they did not have America's interests at heart.

Should we go on to say they were willing to make Israel's interests their own interests?

I also wonder how much of the religious issue made Republicans so agreeable to these war efforts in Iraq and potentially Iran. That issue, I suspect, is about how large numbers of Republican voters believe that Jesus will return only following the establishment of the state of Israel and during the battle of Armagedon.

I doubt if Tira sees himself as a tool of the Christian Zionists. But, don't the Christians see him that way? Is that why they support or enable the foolishness of these wars?

steven andresen

May the day come when the good people of the United States recognize that their government has been taken hostage and forced to do the bidding of a foreign power- Israel.

Kyle M

These days, people have to try pretty hard to ignore what has become painfully obvious.

The question is, what will we DO about it?

The truth is that many people who support israel are in positions of power and Americans have become entirely dependent on the US dollar for their very existence.

The only effective way to change this system is to organize an alternative system by which people can sustain themselves during a fierce protracted political and economic battle.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

you have to see this two part video on Google video ( the money masters ), an eye opener, A MUST SEE 3 hour video about the jewish bankers (Ruthchild's, warbrids)and how they have become so powerful to control the USA and the WORLD, just copy and past the link listed, pease to all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=The+Money...

Question; what is a Christian?
Answer; one who believes in, and or supports Christianity.

Question; what is an antichrist?
Answer; one who opposes Christianity.

Question; who opposes Christianity?
Answer; judaism.

Therefore, judaism IS the antichrist religion.

This should help bring some clarity to this subject.

Good article, but the last poster is daft.

Just because someone opposes your religion or doesn't agree, doesn't mean that you can bust out grand labels like "anti-christ" on them. Anti-Christ is supposed to be used as the antithesis of christ, e.g. the man who supposedly will herald the second coming, not a religion or group of people.

-Jebus

"Anti-Christ is supposed to be used as the antithesis of christ, e.g. the man who supposedly will herald the second coming, not a religion or group of people."
Anti-christ is supposed to be used as the antithesis to christianity, anti-christian. Who is anti-christian, if not the jews?
Can you show me where judiaism is pro christ? Talmud, torah?
Good luck with that.

There is a symbol, a SIX sided circle with SIX triangles and SIX points in all directions, representing world domination.

This is not a "star", it is a hexagram, a symbol of evil.

antisatan: You are obviously not a very well-read person (...or, perhaps, extremely selective in your interests.) I am a Jew, and am well-studied in both Judaism and Christianity. Would you like to challenge me on interpretation of the Jewish and Christian texts?

John 4:22: Jesus did not say "...salvation is through belief in me," he said, "...salvation is of the Jews." To understand what Jesus meant by this statement, you must not only read the verse in context, you must also understand something about Judaism. Since you claim not to subscribe to the idea of "oral tradition" (i.e., Talmud,) please explain the conflict between what Jesus said, and your own personal views concerning Jews.

Explain something as simple to understand as Ezekiel 44:9, keeping in mind that you maintain the position of being a Bible literalist.

Remember Isaiah 40:8: "...the word of our God stands forever and ever."

Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind." (see also 1Sam. 15:29)

These things cannot be abrogated by what Paul said about Jesus in the NT. You either believe what God himself said in the OT, or you ascribe to Paul's opinion which came about hundreds of years after Israel's "age of prophesy" had already ended.

So, antisatan? Who would you sooner believe: Paul or God?

Now, explain to us all:

If "...salvation is of the Jews."

What happens if you're not a Jew?

I thought Judaism was an exclusive religion - based on being born from a Jewish mother.

That doesn't leave the rest of humanity with much choice for being 'saved' like Jews, does it?

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

The quotation from John 4:22 was taken out of context by the Zionist.

Jesus was speaking to a non-Jewish Hebrew woman, the good Samaritan. The point of the whole conversation was to let her know that she could have salvation. She asked if she needed to go to Jerusalem to worship God, or if she could worship in the mountains like her ancestors. His answer was that she could worship God anywhere.

The next line John 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers (non-Jews) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the father SEEKETH SUCH to worship him."

The Jews are not God's "Chosen Race." People who follow His will are his TRUE follower.

Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean), he was a Galilean (different Hebrew tribe). Samaria was between Galilee and Judea.

Many Hebrews became Christian, although very few from the tribe that lived around Jerusalem, the Judeans (Jews). The Judeans considered themselves superior to the other Hebrews, and had their own traditions. Jesus was critical of the Jews for their disobediance to God. They eventually persuaded the Romans to crucify Him.

Centuries later, many Hebrews became Muslim. Todays Palestinians are the descendants of the Hebrews.

A detailed reply to both qrswave and justice seeker will be posted by me, Radioscope, before the end of the day.

you sure are dedicated to your cause!

Too bad, you're on the wrong side of the fence - or, shall I say WALL.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

You are attempting to combine two separate issues.

First, bear in mind that it is Jesus who said this (John 4:22.) This quote comes from your scriptures, not ours; and, its significance is a matter of consequence that you will have to contend with.

When Jesus said "...salvation is of the Jews," he was referring to what is known as the "righteous remnant of Israel." He was referring to Orthodoxy, loosely translated as "the 'straight' or 'correct' way." Jesus' statement stems from the OT; for, as it is written in the NT:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

So, we see here that Jesus himself knows, as I have said before, that the word of God cannot be abrogated. Now, let's go and look back at what the OT has to say about the role of Israel as it relates to being "chosen."

"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles." (Isaiah 42:6)

also,

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: In those days, ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, 'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.'" (Zechariah 8:23.)

That's it in a nutshell. God is not saying that Jews are better than other people, but that they should aspire to set a good example for the nations by living righteously, and by His commandments.

There is nothing in this verse that states that Jews are to believe that they are superior to other people; for, Jews are every bit as human as the non-Jew. Jews were simply the ones who were given the directive by God to be a "light to the nations."

To Judaism, any Gentile who commits acts of righteousness and aspires to live an exemplary life is on the right track and beyond reproach. Judaism does not hold to the idea that Gentiles cannot ascertain the virtue of righteousness for themselves without its (Judaism's) intervention.

I know that there are those who are going to point to Isaiah 42 and state that this is, in fact, a reference to Jesus, and not to corporate Israel. To them I say that even the staunchest Evangelical Christian will at least admit that there are two "servants" in book of Isaiah. One is Israel, the other is Jesus.

The only thing they will neglect to mention is that there is no precedent set for the premise that any reference to the "servant" has anything at all to do with Jesus. Moreover, if Israel was to understand that these sections were referring to Jesus, why was this not carried over into modern Judaism? Take this verse into consideration, for example:

"He said to me, 'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." (Isaiah 49:3)

This is the oft repeated theme throughout the book of Isaiah.

Remember: If Christianity is the logical continuation of Judaism, why did not the majority of Jews accept it? Today, "Christianity" by all means ought to be known as "Judaism." But, it isn't; because - unlike most "Bible Believers," most Orthodox Jews can read, speak and write in the Biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. We know what our own scriptures say in ways that you don't. It is not that you can't; its just that you've chosen not to take the initiative to study them as such.

With regard to what justice seeker said concerning Jesus' statement to the Samaritan woman in John 4:22 (...not the proverbial "Good Samaritan" of Luke 10:25-37,) I have this to say:

Jesus follows up his comments in John 4:22 with this:

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23, 24.)

The aim of this story is to drive home the concept that one is to venerate the Almighty not only with one's mind, but likewise with their heart and soul.

Pointing out John 4: 21 doesn't hold much water, as any Bible scholar will tell you that the version of the Gospel of John that is used in the NT was written in the Diaspora, well after the Romans destroyed the Temple. The time that the writer of this Gospel is alluding to, had already come and passed. It was common knowledge by this time that neither Jew nor Samaritan would be worshiping on either mountain. However, again, I stress that that was not the intended significance of the story.

Looking back to the OT, if God did not consider a particular place to be His special Holy place, He would not have made an issue of it.

"This is what the LORD says: 'I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain.'" (Zech 8:3)

Isaiah 2:3 is yet another example.

Re: Jesus being an "Israelite" as opposed to a "Judean":

If you look in Judges 19, you will find several references to Bethlehem being in Judah. Moreover, a basic understanding of scripture reveals that the Messiah must be descended of both King David, as well as King Solomon; for it says in 2Samuel 7:12, 13:

"When your days (David) are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He (Solomon) is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."

If Jesus was to be considered the Messiah, he by all means had to be of the tribe of Judah.

Now, we Jews have always been meticulous keepers of our genealogies. This is a very important part of our belief system. One inherits his national identity (i.e., his Judaism) matrilineally, and his tribal affiliation patrilineally. Nowhere in the entirety of the Bible is a census ever taken through the lineage of a woman. Only through the men. There are myriad examples of this; and, if you don't believe me, I encourage you to do the investigation yourself.

Now, if Jesus were the legitimate Messiah, here are several obstacles for you to overcome:

The first comes in Matthew 1:11, 12, with reference to Jeconiah. Please look up Jeremiah 22:28-30; and, as someone who accepts the word of the Bible as being singularly authoratative, tell me what you think.

The second comes from Luke 3:31. Traditionally known as Mary's genealogy by Christian sources, this lineage has the royal line going from David through Nathan. As anyone knows, David's son Nathan was not a king.

Remember:

"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." (Genesis 49:10.)

Well, that's enough for you to ponder for a bit. I must say that I still haven't had any takers on the question of Ezekiel 44:9. Anybody game?

Lastly, qrswave, what is your real interest in mentioning the "WALL"? You know, all of this anti-semitism must stem from a feeling of inadequacy on your part. We, as Jews, aren't doing anything to you. We do not call you. We do not knock on your door trying to convert you while you're trying to enjoy your dinner. We don't have our hand out in front of you at your local supermarket, petitioning you for donations to our charities.

What is your problem with us Jews? We take care of ourselves and leave you alone. In light of the genocide that is being committed by ethnic Arab Muslims against black African Muslims - hundreds of thousands of people being raped and slaughtered in Darfur, why is it that you are so singularly focused upon little Israel. It is but a mere one-sixth of one-percent (1/625) of all of the land of the Arab League Nations combined. If Muslims were to take land away from Jews, who in the Arab world - or your own - would raise their voices in indignation?

Jews are indigenous to that land. We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along. When will I hear you cry about the fact that Jews are not permitted to live in Gaza? Arabs are permitted to live in Israel; but, Jews, not in Gaza? Muslim nations have so much vacant land. Do you not see the double-standard that you are setting here when you speak of the "wall"?

Time to study, qrswave, and aspire to take on a more balanced view of life.

quote:

"What is your problem with us Jews? We take care of ourselves and leave you alone."

.
.
.

Again, and time again, you tot around that lie. Do you really believe you are "Jewish" (Semitic/Arab)?

White Europeans are quite different from Arabs/Semites, quite different from Africans, quite different from Asians, quite different from Orientals, etc...

... but should that matter? Why is it that if you are supposedly 'god's chosen' that you are given a 'free-ticket' to heaven (assuming there is one)? Why?

And how does several differences in chromosomes at the 'Population level' somehow make you better than the rest of humanity? "God's chosen"?

Realistically, you may have more genetic similarity with someone from another 'race' than your own -- so what does that mean? Why all of this posturing, posing and flaunting, when the "best case" is that there were a small handful (say a few thousand) of people who lived in ancient Palestine that "migrated" to Europe, married with the locals, etc ----- even in this "best case" scenario, to claim "jewish supremacy" is foolish.

Was there such a thing so definite as "jewish" 2,000 years ago -- such that people who lived in these "villages" were jewish, but the villages next door were Africans, Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, Mongols, etc????

And I really do wish you 'guys' leave the rest of us alone.

No more wars please!

No more rapes please!

No more 'dollar hegemony' please!

No more assasinations please!

No more 'regime changes' please!

No more chemical warfare please!

No more 'sicing your American dog' at the 3rd world countries please!

No more manimpulation of financial markets and stealing please!

No more 'fiat currency' and all its ills please!

No more nuclear bombs killing people (behind the American, a 'jew' ordered it to happen) please!

No more Bolshevicks please!

No more 'Tet offensive' please!

No more killing Koreans, Hispanics, Natives please!

No more slavery please!

No more Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other countries you want to "purify" please!

>>>>>>>> Don't play us for "fools", we "goyims" have had enough!

...hi Radioscope. I appreciate your civility in arguing your points in the face of quite an anti-Zionist group.

I'm no expert in Biblical verses, so will leave the theological debates between you and others.

I would like to rebut some of your secular polemics. You make a mistake that many Zionist apologists make. The whole 'so what?' defence. You say Arabs have so much land, why are they being stingy over such a tiny slice?

Well, it's quite simnple really. Zionist Jews stole land from Arabs. No matter how small the piece is, it is still stealing, it is still unjust, and it is still morally not allowed. You talked a lot about how Jews should be an example for the world, yet when some of them steal the homes of other people, this is not setting a good example at all. A Palestinian doesn't care that Morocco may have room for immigrants, he was forcefully forced out of his home, put in a refugee camp, and is living under military control, with no rights, no nothing. Sure, some got ISraeli citizenship, but there are many who have yet to have their grievances addressed.

You say: "Jews are indigenous to that land. We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along."

The first part is true, and so you pretty much admit that the problem nowadays has never been about Arabs wanting to kick Jews out. They've lived with each other for centuries. The current conflict isn't about an indigenous Jewish minority being kicked out (which the Arabs never did, even in pre-1967 West Bank, many Palestinian Jews were living with Arabs and have yet not moved to 'Israel-1948'.) The conflict is about a FOREIGN (at least in the eyes of Arabs) Jewish group coming in and kicking the Arabs out of their homes, destroying their villages, ethnically cleansing them, and taking their place. Surely if all the European immigrants just came and lived with the Palestinians, they would have become one country, but this is not what happened, because the Zionists wanted to make a Jewish state with a Jewish majority in a piece of land that had an indigenous Arab majority. THAT is the problem.

And don't cry tears for Jews not being allowed to live in GAza. The ones forced out were living in recently constructed illegal settlements. Jews have lived in Gaza for centuries. One of Zionism's forefathers was a Gazan Jew from the 16th century.

And the second part of what I quoted from you is not true. The Jews were not in Palestine before the Arabs came along. I trust you accept the tribe of Israel are all descendents of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. When Abraham moved to Palestine from Iraq, there were already other tribes living there. These tribes were Semitic as well, and are the ancestors of most modern day Arabs. When the tribe of ISrael returned to Palestine, there were already other tribes living there. The Canaanites, etc.

MonkeyZerg

To The Great Revealer and MonkeyZerg, et al:

As there is only one of me and so many issues to address, I vow to work on my reply and to post it as soon as I possibly can.

Since there is only so much time in my day to dedicate to blogging, I will attempt to be more succinct in my response than last time.

My aim for posting here is not to prove with finality that I am "right," but to provoke a more critical analysis of Judaism's role in the world; perhaps, even to correct some misconceptions and biases held by individuals who have not previously had the benefit of interacting with Jews, having only heard or read about us from sources that do not cast us in a fair light.

Radioscope.

Radioscope may be well-versed in both OT and NT, but in this blog we have had enough of the political use of both religion and history. Especially when coming from self-styled 'Jews'.
Let us remind Radioscope that his 'Jews' are overwhelmingly not semitic - the dominant ashkenazic ethno being descendent of the turkik Khazars, Cumans and Alans.
And, please, enough with the quoting of scriptures - texts written decades or even centuries after events they describe, often, in a legendary fashion.
The non-aligned historian knows that religion has always been an instrument of politics and power. He knows that monotheism as we know it was invented by pharao Amenothep IV (Ekhnaton) in the form of the worship of sunlight, then assumed and transformed by the semitic tribes within the Hyksos invaders of northern Egypt at the time of their expulsion (call it exhodus) from Egypt. Armed with monotheism, the Habiru tribes wrenched for themselves land from the autochtonous polytheistic Caananites. Thus Palestine was already occupied by indo-european Phoenician peoples (including the Philistines, early ancestors of the modern Palestinians) when the semitic Israelites arrived from Egypt. Yet the ephemeral biblical reign was terminated by the Assiro-Babilonians, the Persians, the Macedonian-Greeks and then by the Graeco-Romans, most of the Israelites being scattered away and the true autochtonous peoples continually occupying the land. This continued to be the situation (with the notable Crusaders' time exception) through the islamic occupation by Arabs first and then by the Ottoman Turks. Where were the Israelites during all these two millenia? They were mostly assimilated in all the surrounding mediterranean and west-asian lands, living peacefully and in prosperity within their host populations. With two notable exceptions: the true Jews of moorish Spain and the self-styled 'Jews' of Eastern Europe - Khazars and allied turkik tribes, really, converted to Judaism sometimes round the 8th or 9th century CE. The first group had been the Moors' fifth column in christian Spain, so their fate is known. The second much more numerous group was - not many know this - the Mongols' fifth column in the latters' invasion of eastern Europe and Russia. Racial links are what matter when paving the way to invaders, not religious affinities. Through good and rough times amidst catholic and orthodox Christians, the ashkenazic self-styled 'Jews' attained with their enormous accumulated wealth two great goals in 1917. The promise of Palestine for themselves by the British and the total control of Russia to become the Soviet Union. If the second achievement was the restauration of a 'tatar yoke' of yore over Russia - of a new khazar kingdom of a sort - what was then the achievement of the Israel state in 1948? To the non-aligned historian that was pure colonial land grabbing, attained with deception and brute force from a british administration, with the international consensus and over the heads and rights of the autochtonous populations. For the ashkenazic self-styled 'Jews' bought yes some tiny parcels of land, but grabbed the rest with arms and conflicts. And where is their historical claim to that land, if they ultimately descend from converted Finns, Turks and Mongols from Central Asia? Kazakhstan, not Palestine, might be a fair historical claim. As seen above, not even the coerced middle-eastern Jews of the arab lands, forcibly resettled into Israel by the Ashkenazis, could (or would) hold a claim over biblical lands. So how can the Israelis, the 'Jews', hold a claim over Palestine? Only 'de facto' and by brute force, surely not on any genuine historical basis.

Having said that, let us now quote Radioscope:

"That's it in a nutshell. God is not saying that Jews are better than other people, but that they should aspire to set a good example for the nations by living righteously, and by His commandments".

Ah, that's a well-wishing attitude, but alas the Talmud says something entirely different, proclaiming the supremacy of 'Jews' over Gentiles all the time. So Radioscope will now lecture us about the Talmud as well? Also the notion of the 'chosen people' transpires from all over the OT and the rest of the jewish religious literature. Alas the very same concept of 'chosen people' is flawed, when the 'Jews' have such overwhelming component of ancient turkik converts.

"Remember: If Christianity is the logical continuation of Judaism, why did not the majority of Jews accept it"?

Let's be realistic again. The Christians never knew they were being used. The christian heresy was propagated by zealots like Saul of Tarsus (true inventor of the new faith) and within the Roman Empire as a tool to bring the power of Rome down. The idea was to bring new beliefs within Rome's downtroddens in order to make it a state religion more sympathetic to the Jews. So the question is, rather, why did the Christians not accept the Jews more willingly? A probably universal answer to this is that the Jews always kept for themselves and plotted with their racial kinsmen (Moors, Arabs, ... and Turks, Mongols) to bring more sympathetic rulers for their communities in the host countries.

"Today, "Christianity" by all means ought to be known as "Judaism." But, it isn't; because - unlike most "Bible Believers," most Orthodox Jews can read, speak and write in the Biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. We know what our own scriptures say in ways that you don't. It is not that you can't; its just that you've chosen not to take the initiative to study them as such".

If this isn't a jewish supremacy myth. Christians could not choose, they were also coaxed. Just like the 'useful idiots' of the bolshevik 'revolution' did not realise they were only being used to usher in a new regime: for the 'idiots' much more cruel than the tzarist rule.

"Now, we Jews have always been meticulous keepers of our genealogies".

So how did you conveniently 'forget' the dominant turkik genealogy line, back to the Khazar conversion? Yet, before 1917 jewish historians admitted to that overwhelming contribution to the gene pool of the jewish community of believers. Is that not a political use of history?

"You know, all of this anti-semitism must stem from a feeling of inadequacy on your part".

Please: anti-semitism does not exist except in the minds of the self-styled 'Jews'. It fuels your very same recent history, it is necessary for you to survive together with your own creation myths for Israel. Nobody opposes you because you're sticking to the jewsih traditions; rather, because you are constantly lying about your very same origins and history. Another example: pogroms in Poland and Russia? You hold them as persecutions of impoverished communities, but in reality they issued within uprisings against the jewish 'arenda' tribute-collection system which made your aristocracy so wealthy and the slavic peasants and cossack communities so poor. Or, pogroms were propaganded from incidents against the tzarist repression of assassination and revolutionary attempts. Lying about one's own origins is a turkish trait, so you may at the most call our criticism a form of anti-turanism.

"We, as Jews, aren't doing anything to you. We do not call you. We do not knock on your door trying to convert you while you're trying to enjoy your dinner. We don't have our hand out in front of you at your local supermarket, petitioning you for donations to our charities".

True, you don't need all this. You have the international banking and monetary system already in place to achieve your goals. The control of the media and information systems, the control of energy production and distribution, the control of most post-war political systems. Why indeed should you bother us more than you already do?

"What is your problem with us Jews? We take care of ourselves and leave you alone".

The problem is that you lie all the time. You spread disinformation, and this is why we need websites like this. As for 'leaving us alone' ...

"why is it that you are so singularly focused upon little Israel".

It's because it's the most racist, colonialist and above all expansionist state there is. Because it's supported by an international lobby that has its grips on our very livelihood and survival systems.

"It is but a mere one-sixth of one-percent (1/625) of all of the land of the Arab League Nations combined".

Ah, but it's very strategically positioned and this is why the Zionists wanted it so badly since oil became essential to wage modern wars.

'If Muslims were to take land away from Jews'

That is very unlikely, what, with the hundreds or thousands of nukes stockpiled in Israel? And if it ever happened, the true Jews could return to live amidst the Arabs, the self-styled khazar 'Jews' could always return to Kazakhstan.

"Jews are indigenous to that land".

As exposed above, this is FALSE. Based on total falsification of history, and here is where we have our problem. The autochtonous peoples are the Palestinians, the Druses, the Armenians, the Christians and most of the Moslims. Decendents of Caananites, Phoenicians and Philistines. And yes, some Jews. That land is home of the jewish, christian and islamic faiths, so it should be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state with the name Palestine. If the self-styled turkik 'Jews' want a land of their own, what about Kazakhstan, which is where they came from before invading Khazaria (southern Russia) in the 5th century CE? Kazakhstan is vast, almost empty and full of mineral resources.

"We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along".

As exposed above, this is pure zionist propaganda and does not correspond to the historic record. Who is 'we'? The descendants of the Habiru tribes who wrenched the land from the Caananites and Philistines? There were very few of them left in Palestine, living in the midst of the other faiths. Or, the decendants of the judaised turkik tribes of Khazaria? They are indigenous of Kazakhstan, or of the Altay region.

"Muslim nations have so much vacant land".

Yes, and it's all desert, and Zionists want to wrench that too when it can be covered with oil and water pipelines.

"Time to study, qrswave, and aspire to take on a more balanced view of life".

Time to study, yes: your real history and origins, to acknowledge them in public. And time to stop spreading disinformation and make political use of religion and history.

history_worm

To Radioscope:

You write "the genocide that is being committed in Darfur by ethnic Arab Muslims against black African Muslims"

I used to hear about that on the news, and found it hard to believe. Then I watched a detailed documentary on Darfur, with film footage of the men who have being doing the killing. It turns out that it is Black Africans killing Black Africans, inter-tribal warfare, similar to what happened in Rwanda and Zaire.

With further research I found that virtually no Arabs live in southwestern Sudan.

Was the Zionist-controlled news media purposefully spreading lies about Arabs raping and killing Africans to promote hatred against Arabs?

You suggest we interact with Jews. The more interactions people have with Jews, the more they understand some fundamental attitudes and beliefs that most Jews have. For example Michael Rivero (of WhatReallyHappened.com) was married to a Jewish woman. I've known, dated, slept with, lived with, and worked with quite a number of Jews in my life.

I've found most Jews have extreme contempt for Christians and Muslims. Jews promote (as stated in the Protocols) all manner of vices, bad habits, wasteful activities, addictions, and other behaviors among the Gentiles.

What many Jews seem to hate most is the well-adjusted, happy, successful Gentile families. I've found Jews treating homosexual Gentiles with respect, while despising normal, successful heterosexuals. I once knew a Jewish Supremacist woman, a PhD psychologist, who boasted about "rendering men impotent" with her psychology, and in conversations with other Jews she referred to Gentile men as "cockroaches".

Let's face it, the worst and most destructive hatred on earth is the hatred that Jewish Supremacists have for Gentiles.

You say your people want to be the light of the world...why does their behavior indicate the opposite?

Okay, now I'm completely overwhelmed with so many valuable questions and comments that I cannot possibly answer them all; but, I will do my best to field the most important ones.

Granted, you may consider some of those that I have chosen not to respond to as equally important to those I have; and, it's unfortunate that I will not be able to spread myself out too thinly by addressing them all. Again, there is only one of me, and I will do the best I can to take on the larger targets.

First to The Great Revealer:

"Again, and time again, you tot around that lie. Do you really believe you are "Jewish" (Semitic/Arab)?"

Yes, I really believe I am Jewish; because, I am. What you and a great many people fail to realize is that Judaism is a system of belief. It is not an ethnicity. In other words, Islam is to Arabs, what Judaism is to Hebrews. This is not to say that people other than Arabs or Hebrews cannot be Muslim and Jewish, respectively. In fact, as you may well know, Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the world. However, we naturally associate Islam with Arabs because they are the wellspring from which Islam appeared. It is the same with the Hebrew people. Though there are many other ethicities involved in the Jewish faith, it is most closely associated with it's originators, the Hebrew people.

"White Europeans are quite different from Arabs/Semites, quite different from Africans, quite different from Asians, quite different from Orientals, etc..."

This is true. People of varying ethnicities mostly tend to display different physical characteristics.

"... but should that matter? Why is it that if you are supposedly 'god's chosen' that you are given a 'free-ticket' to heaven (assuming there is one)? Why?"

Well, firstly you're wrong in your assumption that - according to Judaism - only Jews are admitted to "Heaven."

Incidentally, the word for "Heaven" in hebrew (haShamayim) is simply transliterated as "the Skies." One does not literally go to "the Skies," but to God. God's domain is considered "the Skies;" because, metaphorically, it is an expanse of unlimited proportion; and, since God cannot be contained, it is an appropriate illustration of where one goes when one dies.

Judaism is different from Christianity is several critical respects. The one that applies most here is that, in Judaism, it isn't who you know, it's what you do that will curry God's favor.

Now, I know here are those of you reading this who, no doubt, will continue to have your suspicions about Jews, and will never like us, no matter what. However, as I said in my previous post: I am not here to get tangled up in a never-ending cycle of tit for tat. I'm only giving you all the benefit of information you will not find on this blog.

Having said that, I will continue to say that Judaism is a works-based religion; whereas, Christianity is a faith-based religion. In Judaism, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you do good deeds and aspire to bring the world to a state of perfection. Does this mean that we can all make the world "perfect"? No; but, it does mean that we should try. Conversely, Christianity holds that salvation of your soul only comes through faith that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but God himself; and that, you will only get to Heaven by accepting this as a fact.

Are there Jews who follow the letter of the Law (...such as not holding grudges against their fellow man) who do not feel that way inside? Yes, certainly. God may suggest that you discard your hateful heart; but, He will not insist on it. By sacrificing what we feel inside in order to fulfill God's bidding, we are committing acts of righteousness.

For instance, as insincere as it may seem, if I hate you, but resist the temptatiton to speak ill of you, this is something that God will look upon with favor. Of course, far be it from me to put words in God's mouth. He may do with me as He pleases. I can only assume that, through faith in His good word, I will bring Him honor by subduing my desire to speak vengefully of you.

Is this not a form of dishonesty? Yes, it can be construed as such. However, do we not all tell little white lies upon occasion in order to spare someone's feelings? Sometimes our blatant honesty can only add insult to injury.
So, ultimately, the answer is no. Jews do not get a "free ticket" to Heaven for being considered by God to be His "Chosen." All people go directly to God, irrespective of their religious affiliation, who have lived a life of merit.

"And how does several differences in chromosomes at the 'Population level' somehow make you better than the rest of humanity? "God's chosen"?"

Again, I have to stress that being God's chosen has very much less to do with ethnicity than it does with observance of God's Law. It would be wonderful if we could all serve God cheerfully, and without rancor. But, sometimes we don't. In order to be an asset to humanity, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice how we really feel for the greater good.

"Realistically, you may have more genetic similarity with someone from another 'race' than your own -- so what does that mean? Why all of this posturing, posing and flaunting, when the "best case" is that there were a small handful (say a few thousand) of people who lived in ancient Palestine that "migrated" to Europe, married with the locals, etc ----- even in this "best case" scenario, to claim 'jewish supremacy' is foolish."

I have said it before, and I will say it again: This idea of "Jewish supremacy" is coming out of your own imaginings. Is this to say that there are not a number of Jews out there who do, in fact, consider themselves to be superior to the Gentiles? Clearly, there are. But, they are by no means a majority; and, they are incorrect in thinking so.

There are bad apples in any group. It is as true of Jews, as it is of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc.
When you speak to me of "posturing, posing and flaunting," it sounds very much like the descriptions we read of the Pharisees from a New Testament perspective. I, personally, know of no Jews who "posture, pose or flaunt." Perhaps, you can be a bit more specific.

There may well have been several thousand Jews who migrated to Europe; but, I don't understand, in light of what I have already said concerning the differences between ethnicity and belief system, what this has to do with anything. There must certainly have been converts to Judaism. No doubt, there were Jewish women who had children with Gentile men.

It is important for you to understand that one can only be Jewish if he or she was born of a Jewish mother, or converted. There is no other way. According to Orthodoxy, there is no other way. In cases such as these, though one's father is not a Jew, the progeny of this coupling may be Jewish, but they lack a tribal affiliation.

So, though there may be a great many Jews of North-Eastern and Central Europe who are much whiter than their Middle-Eastern kinsmen, if their mother was Jewish, they are considered Jewish, as well.

"Was there such a thing so definite as 'jewish' 2,000 years ago -- such that people who lived in these 'villages' were jewish, but the villages next door were Africans, Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, Mongols, etc????"

If black Africans, Egyptians, Arabs, Indians and Mongols have been able to maintain their ethnicity, why not the Hebrew people? Were there Jews two-thousand years ago? Yes. Not only is there much historical documentation from disparate sources to prove that this is the case, there is also archaeological and anthropological evidence to support it, as well.

"And I really do wish you 'guys' leave the rest of us alone."

"No more wars please!"

Israel has had to defend itself several times against its agressors. On a couple of occasions it has had to preemptively strike at those intent on its destruction. Mostly, though, it simply retaliated against its agressors; which was an entirely reasonable thing to do. Israel's giving the Sinai back to Egypt was a gesture of unprecedented proportions, as was its unilateral divestment from Gaza.

Show me another country that, after having acquired territories in a war, had just as easily returned them for diplomatic relations and peace.

"No more rapes please!"

Now, you've lost me. What "rapes"?

"No more 'dollar hegemony' please!"

You're going to have to be more specific than that, my friend.

"No more assasinations please!"

By "assasinations," I would assume that you are referring to terrorist leaders who are targeted and killed in their cars, and such? Again, I don't know what country you're living in; but, if someone is organizing activities that are detrimental to the people of the state of Israel, they are fair game.

If you lived in Texas, and Mexican dissidents who did not cotton to the idea that it was now a part of the United States started indiscriminately lobbing missiles over the border, would you or would you not expect your government to do something about it for the good of your family and your neighbors?

"No more 'regime changes' please!"

Now, I think you're just throwing things out there. I could waste my time on the remainder of these comments; but, I won't. Your implication that Jews are responsible for everything that is evil is just about bordering on the ridiculous, now. You should've quit while you were ahead, The Great Revealer.

"No more chemical warfare please!

No more 'sicing your American dog' at the 3rd world countries please!

No more manimpulation of financial markets and stealing please!

No more 'fiat currency' and all its ills please!

No more nuclear bombs killing people (behind the American, a 'jew' ordered it to happen) please!

No more Bolshevicks please!

No more 'Tet offensive' please!

No more killing Koreans, Hispanics, Natives please!

No more slavery please!

No more Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other countries you want to "purify" please!

>>>>>>>> Don't play us for "fools", we "goyims" have had enough!"

I will address a couple of other people's responses, and then leave this forum to its own devices.

More to come, when I find the time. Hopefully, soon.

Radioscope.

P.S. So much for "succinctness." Heh heh!

Well said justice seeker. Jewish supremacy and contempt for the Gentiles is rooted in the Talmud (alas Radioscope does not seem to know or want to acknowledge this). The Talmud is full of entries against Christians, a good reason why the christian kings routinely ordered the mass burning of such books. With the only result of increasing jewish contempt for the Gentiles. Some, of course, converted to the christian faith (whilst secretly remaining attached to their kin).
This contempt is well explained by centuries of animosity between Jews and Christians and I have explained already how on the christian side this was rooted on Jews acting as fifth columns in undermining christian rule of their host countries. Jews in Spain guided the armies of the Moors and opened city gates to the invaders. Jews (and 'Jews') in the Byzantinian Empire plotted with the Arabs (later with the Turks) to bring christian rule to an end. 'Jews' (in fact converted turkik Khazars) in Poland guided the armies of the Mongols and helped bringing the christian rule to an end. Always these disloyal aliens became the invaders' administrators, tax-collectors and diplomats for their kin rulers. Always the return of christian rule brought persecution and suspicion of the Jews and 'Jews'. Often the attempts to bring christian rule down brought persecutions, expulsions, pogroms.
So what to expect from centuries of betrayal, animosity and mutual suspicion, mutual atrocious behaviour, other than contempt?

history_worm

... Radioscope. At least we have a reasonable antagonist to play with.

You say:

"Judaism is a system of belief. It is not an ethnicity".

Fair enough, this is also what we say. We also say the 'Jews' are not one people, not one ethno, but a collection of ethnic groups and tribes (like you admit) with the same system of belief. Just like the Christians and the Moslims. Yet, when it comes to Israel, you suddenly become one people, one ethno and so you justify the need for your own state. But you are not one people and one ethno. Your many ethnos don't even have a common history, a common language. Modern Hebrew is a linguistic concoction like Esperanto, ancient Hebrew is used only lithurgically like Latin might be. Your ethnos have spoken Aramaic, Ladino, Chuwash, Yiddish, now English and countless other idioms and languages. Should the Christians also demand a state for themselves? Should the chinese Catholics demand to have a piece of Italy, just because their faith comes originally from Rome? Should the german Evangelists demand a piece of Palestine too, just because their faith goes back to the Essenes? If the 'Jews' needed a state of their own because of christian persecution (granted and explained) why not go back to Kazakhstan where THAT ethno originally came from? Why demand Palestine?

"Though there are many other ethicities involved in the Jewish faith, it is most closely associated with it's originators, the Hebrew people".

So just imagine if the chinese Catholics, german Evangelists and so on had this same perspective! The entire world would be on fire, not just the Middle East. Can you turkik Ashkenazis not comprehend, you cannot ask for Palestine all for yourselves just because you embraced a faith coming from that land! Moreover, since your true holy book is the Talmud, you should recognise that THAT faith came from Baghdad, perhaps, and was perfected by the Khazar converts in the east-european diaspora. Your faith originated in Palestine, but was perfected in Eastern Europe. And ALL these lands were/are not available for grab.

"I know here are those of you reading this who, no doubt, will continue to have your suspicions about Jews, and will never like us, no matter what".

Wrong, we like you, at least I do. But this does not stop us being critical. We shall stop being critical when you will admit your limits. That you are not one people, one ethno, that the great majority of you is turkik and not semitic and that you grabbed another people's land and keep it with the use of brute force, just like european colonialists did (and do). So, please stay with us and argue your case.

"In Judaism, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you do good deeds and aspire to bring the world to a state of perfection".

But why does this contrast so vividly with the way you Jews treat the rest of the world? Do you mean that 'good deeds' and 'the world' is your own world, that of your own jewish communities, and good deeds to your own co-believers ONLY? Please don't fool us by saying 'there are bad apples', unless you are the only good apple of your lot.

"This idea of "Jewish supremacy" is coming out of your own imaginings".

Unfortunately it's for everyone to see in the Old Testament, in the Mishna and in the Talmud. It's really like justice seeker said.

"There must certainly have been converts to Judaism".

"It is important for you to understand that one can only be Jewish if he or she was born of a Jewish mother, or converted. There is no other way".

So, what do you tell us about the converted Khazars, Cumans, Alans and other turkik tribes? Their descendency makes up the overwhelming majority of 'Jews'. Did they really have jewish ancestral mothers? Then perhaps we all have! Are we all jewish? Can we all become citizens of Israel?

"Were there Jews two-thousand years ago? Yes".

Granted. Maybe even 3,250 years ago (time ? of Moses, priest of the temple of Heliopolis). Maybe we all descend from those men and women expelled by the pharao, the probability is certainly not zero. Should we all then claim a piece of Palestine and a piece of the Nile delta? Can you not see the absurdity of this attitude in the 'law of return'?

"Show me another country that, after having acquired territories in a war, had just as easily returned them for diplomatic relations and peace".

In recent times: the Soviet Union. It nominally returned countries bound to it in the Warsaw Pact, now mostly independent. It returned Eastern Germany to Germany! The exchange of 'land for peace' is as old as mankind.

I will also explain what the Great Revealer may have meant:

"No more rapes please!"
Now, you've lost me. What "rapes"?

What about the rapes of the german women at the end of WW2? At least 2 million births issued from those systematic rapes, which were theorised (Ilya Eherenburg), encouraged (even performed) by ashkenazi officers.

"No more 'dollar hegemony' please!"

Perhaps the jewish-controlled Federal Reserve?

"No more assasinations please!"

Perhaps he meant Mossad target assassinations, or a little more back in history the assassination of tzars and european monarchs and diplomats?

"No more 'regime changes' please!"

That's what you just did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and plan to do in Iran ...

"No more manimpulation of financial markets and stealing please"!

Favourite jewish passtime, should we recall the origins of the Great Depression? Pre 9-11 stockmarket speculations and so on?

"No more nuclear bombs killing people (behind the American, a 'jew' ordered it to happen) please"!

He's right. The development of the atomic (and hydrogen) bomb carries jewish names. So did the political will to develop these weapons.

"No more Bolshevicks please"!

He's right. The Bolshevik 'revolution' was an ashkenazic coup d'etat, a restauration of the central asian 'tatar yoke' of yore.

etc.etc.

All due to a few bad apples? Let us discuss, please don't leave us.

history_worm

Thank you very much for the invitation to stay, history_worm.

I will certainly try to continue posting replies to all your comments to the best of my ability. However, as you can see, brevity is not one of my strong points; and, as more comments appear in reply to each of my postings, it will likely become more difficult for me to respond to each and every one of you as I would like.

So, if I don't get to your questions right away (...or, not at all,) it isn't because I have strategically decided to skirt a particular issue to save face; it's simply because, due to other obligations, I haven't the time.

Thus far, I think I've demonstrated myself to be a pretty straight-shooter; and, if I don't have an adequate answer for any particular comment, I will certainly cop to my lack of knowledge, and will have to commit myself to further research on the given issue.

I will try to post my next reply sometime this evening.

...and, thanks again for the interest!

Radioscope.

... just take into account the views of this man. He describes the types of things we complain about. For your consideration and thought:

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel By SHULAMIT ALONI

Striking Excerpt:

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

This soldier is one of those Zionists who should be thinking about the wrongs he is committing, rather than accuse those who point it out of anti-Semitism.

MonkeyZerg

... the author I quoted and linked to is:

"Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel."

MonkeyZerg

I was up till around two this morning, putting the finishing touches on my reply to The Great Revealer. Unfortunately, I will not have my next reply (in response to MonkeyZerg's blog, dated January 7th) done in time to be able to post tonight; though, I do fully anticipate having it posted by tomorrow night.

Please do not hold up the show on my account; and, feel free to post at will. I think it best that I reply to all interested parties in order of date, which not only guarantees that no poster is left unanswered, but also gives you the assurance that I am not selectively picking and choosing over which subject matter would be easiest for me to field (...in other words, "cheating.")

This will, of course, take time; so, please be patient and bear with me.

Thanx!

Radioscope.

I believe it important to bounce off our criticism of Jews with the Jews themselves. We are not Jew-haters - at least I am not - we are only critical of jewish supremacy and ill-doings. Most of the time the reaction of Jews being criticised is aggression followed by victimism and stupid accusations of antisemitism. This Radioscope appears to have civil manners, so his reactions to our criticism is interesting. He appears to take everything in terms of a clash of religions, because religion is where he is best schooled. However this is a political forum, so history and sociology - not religion - are the instruments we should use.
Believe me, the Israel, Middle-East, jewish-lobby issues of this forum have little to do with religion - except where the moral teachings of the Talmud are concerned. We critics too are conditioned by christian morals. We are now critical of jewish/israeli colonialism, but at the time of the european colonialism in Asia, Africa and Oceania we would have witnessed the very same abominations. Who remembers the genocide of the Tasmanians by the British?
This mess in the ME is all to do with racialism, power and the exploitation of natural resources. In that, european and americal neo-colonialism blends in with 'jewish' nationalism, expansionism and supremacy myths in an explosive mix. Though little acknowledged, the 'jewish' lobby was very active in the heyday of the British Empire too, so what we are seeing is the repeat of history with the American Empire in place of the British. Going in the other direction in history, what the judaised Khazars were doing with the British was a continuation of what they were doing with the Mongols. So there is little new now, except for the changing role of the natural resources and the major driving forces of the modern economies.
One component of modern history seems to be a constant though, and that is the grip the judaised Khazars have had on the Western world since the downfall of their own kingdom. This last event has changed completely the history of Asia, Russia, Poland, Eastern and Western Europe, Britain, America and now the Middle East. Had there been no conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, we would live now in a completely different world. The Khazars would have kept their caucasian state and the world would have witnessed - possibly - lesser horrors. Hard to say. But Judaism would have gone, become a quaint old faith like Zoroastrianism.
Now we face an unnecessary clash of civilizations, mainly because of our addiction to fossil energy. Yet there are ways out, the first thing to do would be to launch an all-out search for viable alternatives to oil and gas - resources the West does not have in the measure it consumes. Just like JF Kennedy ushered the space age, we need a wise leader to usher the oil- and gas-free age in the world. Yet the very same 'jewish' scientists so dominant in our academia hamper the birth of a new civilization. They pooh-pooh research in cold-fusion and other alternatives to carbon-burning technologies, but further the financing of esoteric research like the unification of forces and the search for ephemeral particles - or quantum computing and all that can be used (maybe) to secure (their) military supremacy. All with OUR money. So that's not acceptable. Instead of complaining, we should press for changes in the leadership of the West. Bush and his neo-cons must go, but bringing in Clinton-like democrats does not suffice. They serve the interests of the same lobby, in the end, maybe just with a less cruel face. A radical political change is what is needed.

history_worm

In reply to Radioscope on Sunday: (Sorry for my late response, I only got on the blog today.) In Re: Ezekiel 44:9 "I, the Sovereign Lord, declare that no uncircumcised foreigner, no one who disobeys me, will enter my Temple, not even a foreigner who lives among the people of Isreal."
You must realize that we Christians believe that Jesus talks about the Temple and means Himself. See John 2:19 "Tear down this Temple, and in three days I will build it again."
You referenced John 4:22, "You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship;, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes."
Christians know this verse is in reference to Jesus Christ; He is the salvation that came from the Jews.
Of course you know you are taking this out of context if you think this means that our salvation comes from the Jews who worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, because the verse prior (4:21) states, "Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem."

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

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

There are thouands of different interpretations of the Bible. There are many different sects within Christianity. I think some of the original meaning has been lost in the many different versions and translations of the Bible.

People often come up with completely different meanings from the exact same verses of scripture. Some people use scripture to reinforce their personal beliefs that originated elsewhere, not in the Bible.

Jewish Supremacists may use quotations from the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) to justify their belief in being the "Chosen Race". Unethical evangelists may quote scripture for the purpose creating guilt in their followers, in order to persuade them to hand over their money.

As a secular Christian, I take it all with a grain of salt. The only parts of the Bible I take literally are the quotations from Christ Himself, while recognizing even He may have been somewhat misquoted. There are slight differences in the four gospels (four accounts of His life), possibly because of the differences in translations (they were written in three different languages, Matthew and John in Hebrew, Luke in Greek and Mark in Latin) and some of the information may have been secondhand (Luke and Mark were not disciples). It is wise to recognize that MEN wrote those gospels and the rest of the Bible, and although Christ was infallible, no human being is perfect.

As for the Old Testament, I don't think it is wise to take it literally, since much of it is just old Hebrew legends, no more valid than old Greek and Norse mythology.

... this last comment by justice seeker!
In a political forum - in order to get somewhere - it is wise to leave religious issues and interpretations aside. The holy books were indeed written by men of the faith, and decades (NT) or even centuries (OT) after the events discussed took place. These men wanted to give a sacred account of the origins of their faith mixed in with the origins and deeds of their own successful ethno.
For example, Abraham and Isaac. There is NO EVIDENCE that these were historical figures. These two characters of the OT, plus Ishmael for the Muslims, serve only the purpose of illustration for the mythical origins of the two main semitic peoples of the Book.
Jacob, instead, seems to have been historical and to have been a Hyksos leader; Moses was a priest of the temple of Heliopolis (see one of my previous posts). Alas, Jesus seems to me NOT to have been historical. The version we have of Flavius Josephus' history book, in which Jesus is mentioned as a historical character, seems to have been part-faked by (St.) Ambrose, one of the fathers of the early Church.

history_worm

Hi history_worm,

Can you elaborate on the 'jewish scientists' who aren't allowing progress towards renewable energy and are wasting money on quantum research. I don't recall ever seeing that Jews are doing this for any motive, let alone that Jews dominate these fields.

Also, I disagree that if the Khazars never converted to Judaism that Judaism would've become history like Zoroastrianism. Don't forget Sephardi/Arabic/ME Jews lived in parallel to the Ashkenazis in Europe til even now, and they never showed signs of disappearing regardless of what was going on in Europe's Jews (Judaised Khazars).
What I do suspect though, is if there would have been a Zionist movement if the Khazars never converted, since nearly all the pivotal figures of Zionism came from Europe and not the ME.

MonkeyZerg

Hey History Worm, I notice you said that "it is wise to leave religious issues and interpretations aside", and went on to give your opinions on religious texts.

Also, the "About Us" segment states: This site was born from a desire to expose America's fraudulent monetary system and the evil of charging interest on money loaned.

It has since grown into a labor of love and a quest for truth and justice in all aspects of life and human culture with a special focus on political and economic justice - free from racism and oppression.

We welcome you to join us in sharing information, exposing lies, and enlightening each other with personal experiences and observations.

>>>Am I missing the part that says "no discussion of religious text interpretation." Is this your site? I am willing to follow the rules of the site, but it is only fair that the rules should be spelled out and applied to everyone. Note: I did not begin this textual discussion, I only responded to an open challenge posed on the site.

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

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

In response to your posting of January 7th:

Hello!

Sorry for the delay in posting. I've had the flu for a couple of days now; but, since it's the "JewFlu - the exclusive flu of the 'Chosen People,'" it shouldn't last nearly as long for me as it would for non-Jews (...just joking, really!)

"I'm no expert in Biblical verses, so will leave the theological debates between you and others."

Fair enough. Just the same, you cannot deny that Judaism - either of its own accord, or through the motivations of its largest offshoots (Christianity and Islam,) has exerted an inescapably vast amount of influence over western culture; socially, politically, religiously and otherwise.

With reference to what you begin to state in the next paragraph regarding my "secular polemics" and the "'So what?' defense," I have this to say:

War is not intended to be a comfortable way of resolving conflicts of opinion. War is, by its very nature, a very violent creature. It was not invented by Jews; and, I dare say that most of the people who are reading this - if not all of you, either come from a country which has invaded and colonized other countries, or are in fact the colonizers themselves. And yet, bearing witness as to how the ovewhelming majority of you simply pass-the-buck on your own portion of personal responsibility for the ills of the world, I am given great pause for thought concerning your ability to be objective with regard to Israel and the issue of Zionism.

Let me come at this from a different angle:

Jews have always maintained such a prominent profile in the worlds affairs for several important reasons, not the least of which has to do with religion.

Let me explain:

Most of you may not be aware of this, but Orthodox Jews - those generally considered to be the keepers of the faith - begin their education from a very early age. They study throughout their formative years up into their adulthood for, as incredible as it may seem, sometimes sixteen hours a day. What a mental work ethic these kids are brought up with! They study both Tanach (...an acronym in hebrew for "the Law, the Prophets and the Writings," - or, to Christians, the Old Testament,) as well as the Talmud. And, what is the Talmud? It is an extensive collection of codified oral histories of rabbinical wisdom (..."rabbi" simply means "master," as in a "master of the law.")

In Jewish tradition, there is the "Letter of the Law," and there is also "Interpretation of the Letter of the Law." When one stops to consider the judicial system, one is not only confronted with a set of laws, but also the applications of these laws. Which laws apply to a particular case? Which do not? How can we use the laws to convict, or to defend an individual, organization or statute?

This is what the Talmud is basically all about. Observant Jews will not dare to question as to whether or not God actually said what is written in the Bible; but rather, in cases where scripture is nebulous "What does God mean?" For instance, in the traditional Jewish sense, the Commandment not to Murder (...the 6th Commandment) not only forbids the murder of someone in the physical sense, but also in the psychological sense. "Do not bring shame to that person in the midst of others by castigating him in public. Gently pull him aside and tell him in private." Talmudic debating is a normal part of the fabric of Jewish life.

Whereas, most successful Gentiles (...and, guys: When I use the term "Gentile," I say it with greatest respect,) begin their professional careers several years after junior college or a major university, you have to understand that we Jews already have the edge on you. I do not say this with an ounce of bravado, but as a fact that must be examined.

I gather that there is a great sense of inequity amongst you toward the Jews for acquiring and maintaining such high profiles in the area of Law, Finance, Science and other areas of major endeavor in the world. You have to understand that progress is a forward-moving thing. Do not resent the Jewish people for being movers-and-shakers. Nor should you resent your parents for not having had the ability to have given you the kind of education that we Jews generally take for granted. The Jewish community is clannish, and charity begins at home. We take care of ourselves, to be certain; but, not to the exclusion of others. Here in the U.S., one can come aboard almost any secular campus, college or major university, and find halls, gymnasiums or other structures with Jews names on them. Why would Jews donate so much money to secular institutions? Because we put a premium on education and believe it is a good thing for all to have. Also, the giving of charitable donations (known as Tzedaka) is commanded of us by God.

Before the Age of Enlightenment, ushered in by the many riches brought back to Europe through the conquest of the Americas, the Gentile serfs of European nations did not get days off from work. There was none of this "Take the Sunday afternoon off" business as mandated by modern law. The Jews, however, have had the Sabbath day off since ancient times (..."Sabbath" or "Shabbat" shares the root with the hebrew word for "seven," which is transliterated as "sheva." This is how we know the day of rest to be on the Seventh Day.) If Jews had no other time to study, we at least had our Saturdays off. It was only the most prosperous of Gentiles during olden times who could afford the luxury of owning their own Bible (...and, even then, they may not have been capable of reading it;) however, Jews have always had the scriptures on hand and were assured of an excellent education.

So, what does all this mean? It means, if Gentiles want to play catch-up to Jews (...and now, perhaps more prevalently, Asians) in the world of international finance, media and whatever else, they had just better start getting to it! We Jews, generally speaking, are an educated people, generally speaking. Just who is to determine how far we are permitted to go in life? Conversely, who is to say how much you, as a Gentile should have? Who is to put limits on human creativity and the success of an individual?

I remember Lee Iacocca's Chrysler ads in the early 80's, elevating its own product by putting the Japanese auto industry down. I thought to myself then, "That's terribly petty of him," considering that the U.S. automakers ought to have taken their cue from the Japanese fifteen years earlier. It was in the early 80's - as I recall - that the heavy tariffs against automoble products from Japan had begun. Why should Japanese industry suffer such indignity and defamation from an unchanging and belligerent U.S. auto industry? It's a capitalist system, and the Japanese won fair and square. Now, every car for the common consumer aspires to feel and handle like a Japanese car. And, WHY NOT? They earned it, hands down.

If you are an atavist and don't appreciate progress, then I can understand why you don't like the Jews. If you don't like your cellphone (...an Israeli invention,) cast it away. Live on a farm. Do not blame Jews for your temptation to use the things that we come up with or inspire. If anything, you should consider this as a challenge to lift your own people up. We don't have to keep you down in order to feel validated as human beings. Why all the breast-beating? The more time you spend complaining about the things that you don't have, the less time you allot yourself to making your dreams come true.

I advise you all to manage your time wisely and to make the most of it. It is only one of the most recent posts to this forum, commendably written by history_worm ("thoughts of a radical," dated 01-09-07) which posits the first degree of self-culpability that I have seen here; and, I am duly impressed with his candor and introspection. For, though he still puts forth certain arguments that I disagree with, it was most honest of him to concede that everyone has had the opportunity to put their dirty little hands in the cookie jar upon occasion; and, many have certainly taken advantage.

You will not hear from my mouth that Jews can do no wrong. We Jews are amongst the most self-critical people there are. We have our Bill Krystols as well as our Shulamit Alonis. I, personally, have been ripped-off to the tune of several thousand dollars by a co-religionist; however, it is not to Judaism which I ascribe the blame, but to the individual. There was no cabal. No conspiracy. Just an insensitive opportunist who took advantage of me. And, it can happen anywhere, to anyone. I also blame myself for not having been the wiser; but, in the final analysis, it is a lesson well-learned, and nothing more. Time to move on.

As the late Abbie Hoffman (...a Jew, himself) wisely said, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." It's wise to let go of the past, and to aspire to make the future better. There is always a new idea to exploit if you put your mind to it. You have the power to work at it and succeed; or, let the spoils go to the victor. The outcome of your very future is contingent upon what you are willing to do about it. How much are you willing to sacrifice?

When I read posts from people who only know what the Talmud says from websites or literature which have no desire to understand it from a Jewish perspective, it is disconcerting to me. I do not read about the Palestinian Arab situation exclusively from the Israeli press. I go to pro-Palestinian sources as well. If I desire to know what a Christian thinks, I do not go to a Buddhist. Likewise, if you desire to know the mind of a Jew - to know what or how he thinks, ask him. Balance what you are eager to believe about us, with things that have the power to challenge your preconceived notions about us. Go to sites such as Aish.com. This will be of incalculable importance to you in your discernment of the "truth."

"I would like to rebut some of your secular polemics. You make a mistake that many Zionist apologists make. The whole 'so what?' defence. You say Arabs have so much land, why are they being stingy over such a tiny slice?

Well, it's quite simple really. Zionist Jews stole land from Arabs. No matter how small the piece is, it is still stealing, it is still unjust, and it is still morally not allowed. You talked a lot about how Jews should be an example for the world, yet when some of them steal the homes of other people, this is not setting a good example at all. A Palestinian doesn't care that Morocco may have room for immigrants, he was forcefully forced out of his home, put in a refugee camp, and is living under military control, with no rights, no nothing. Sure, some got ISraeli citizenship, but there are many who have yet to have their grievances addressed."

Re: Zionist Jews having stolen Arab land:

Mere months before the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947, it was clear that there would be a war no matter how the partition lines were drawn. In anticipation of this war, many of the well-to-do Arabs (the effendi) of Western Galilee, from Haifa to Acco and villages in between, closed down their houses and went to Beirut or Damascus. With their wealth and connections, they could wait out the war in safety. No one imagined the infant state of Israel could win a war with the Arab states. The Arabs who left thought that they would be out of the way of danger, and when the war was over they would come back to their homes. Current estimates of objective observers (Conor Cruise O'Brien, in his book "The Siege," being perhaps the most objective) is that about 70,000 fled.

These refugees caused a sudden absence of political and social leadership among the Arabs of Galilee, and thus as the hostilities developed in the winter of 1947, many of the Arab peasantry (Felahin) fled as well, following their leaders' example. They lacked the money and connections to make a comfortable trip out of the way of danger, as their effendi had done. So many of them simply walked with whatever they could carry to Lebanon or Syria. Their leadership had fled, which led them to assume that things must be pretty bad, so they figured they had better leave too. They too were sure, based upon documentation form Arab press at the time, that when the war was over and the Jews were all dead or driven from Israel, they would come back to their homes.

There are no solid numbers for this exodus, but estimates range around 100,000 people. There were so many exiting that the Arab states had a special conference in Beirut to decide how to handle all the Arabs that were pouring across the borders. They set up special camps, later to be known as refugee camps. These Arabs were fleeing of their own free will. No one, neither Israel nor the Arab states, were encouraging, frightening, or ordering them to do so. The war had not yet even begun.

"You say: 'Jews are indigenous to that land. We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along.'

The first part is true, and so you pretty much admit that the problem nowadays has never been about Arabs wanting to kick Jews out. They've lived with each other for centuries. The current conflict isn't about an indigenous Jewish minority being kicked out (which the Arabs never did, even in pre-1967 West Bank, many Palestinian Jews were living with Arabs and have yet not moved to 'Israel-1948'.) The conflict is about a FOREIGN (at least in the eyes of Arabs) Jewish group coming in and kicking the Arabs out of their homes, destroying their villages, ethnically cleansing them, and taking their place. Surely if all the European immigrants just came and lived with the Palestinians, they would have become one country, but this is not what happened, because the Zionists wanted to make a Jewish state with a Jewish majority in a piece of land that had an indigenous Arab majority. THAT is the problem."

If the U.S. patent office hadn't confiscated so many of Nikola Tesla's brilliant ideas and kept them from us, this would not even be an issue right now. However, this is but an illustration. There are so many things to cry about in the world other than what is allegedly happening to the Palestinians at the hands of the ruthless Israelis (...equate my use of the word "ruthless" with the way the soldier in Shulamit Aloni's article uses "Apartheid" from MonkeyZerg's posting titled "No need to reply to this Radioscope" of 01-09-07, which has obviously been taken out of its intended context to further the agenda of the opposition.) The Muslim nations hold the majority of the world's petroleum resources. Being that the function of our economy is fundamentally oil-based, Israel - and, by extension, the Jews (...at least, in this forum of public opinion) - appear to be in a very precarious position of having to be the unwilling appeasers of the neighborhood bullies holding all the candy.

If Middle-Eastern oil meant nothing to us; if oil had relatively little or no value to the world economy, is this the biggest thing you could think of to complain about? To some, as I've said before, it will always be about "the Jews." However, the astute observer will clearly see that the Palestinian Arabs have been kept as refugees for the Muslim world's war of proxy against the state of Israel from the beginning. Such states as rich as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E. and Qatar could certainly have pooled their resources to have helped their brethren relocate to vacant land within their territories if they'd wanted to; but, they don't want to because, having a Jewish state in the Middle-East is anathema to their theological beliefs. Moreover, they're sore losers who cannot accept defeat at the hands of the dhimmi. Oh yes, it's okay for Muslims to lose their lives to other Muslims, for we hear tell of Sunnis and Shias abducting, torturing and killing eachother all the time. Where is the great Muslim voice of moderation in the midst of this morass? We hear nothing but the sound of crickets in the night. But, when it comes to the Jews having a place of their own in the land of their origin (...and, don't worry friends, I will address the presupposition amongst you that the Ashkenazim are actually Khazars on a later post!,) and targeting for assassination those bent upon its destruction, then the world is in an uproar.

In the midst of all the violence occuring in the Middle-East today, you cannot deny that it is the Jewish nation that has shown the most restraint. Who else drops leaflets from a plane telling people to leave before the bombs fall upon their civic and industrial infrastructure? Who else goes out of their way to target terrorist leaders when they are alone, by themselves? Israel has made its share of mistakes as well; however, it would be to your greater benefit to do a comparative study as to which side is descriminate, and which is indiscriminate in its targeting of individuals.

"And don't cry tears for Jews not being allowed to live in GAza. The ones forced out were living in recently constructed illegal settlements. Jews have lived in Gaza for centuries. One of Zionism's forefathers was a Gazan Jew from the 16th century."

Are you saying that there exists somewhere in Gaza today - with the express permission and approval of the Palestinian Authority, a community of Jews? ...And, I'm speaking of the one's who were not on recently constructed "illegal" settlements.

Please, tell me more!

"And the second part of what I quoted from you is not true. The Jews were not in Palestine before the Arabs came along. I trust you accept the tribe of Israel are all descendents of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. When Abraham moved to Palestine from Iraq, there were already other tribes living there. These tribes were Semitic as well, and are the ancestors of most modern day Arabs. When the tribe of ISrael returned to Palestine, there were already other tribes living there. The Canaanites, etc."

Well, you may be right in saying that the Canaanites lived there; but, where do you necessarily get the idea that Canaanites are Arabs? Can you prove this, conclusively. I have found in my studies that the ancestors of the Canaanites (...the modern-day Lebanese,) do not consider themselves to be Arabs. Moreover, as I have stated earlier in this post, essentially, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone at her." Who here comes from a nation whos history is beyond reproach? Europe was not even in its infancy when the Hebrews conquered the Canaanites. The Middle-East was littered with cultures, from the Canaanites, to the Nabateans, to the Arameans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians; in fact, too many to mention. None of the aforementioned were necessarily Arab, either (...though, I will concede they were probably all Semitic.)

You may not want to hear it, but again I give the "So what?" defense. In light of atrocities committed by Europe against the peoples of other lands throughout the millenia (i.e., the Roman conquests, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the pogroms of eastern Europe, etc.) why is this even an issue? It's like the pot calling the kettle black. The acquisition of Canaan was so long ago. By all accounts, this should be a non-issue. Just water under the bridge (...more like a dry riverbed on Mars, for all its worth.)

Anyway, I'm all written out. I'm sure that there are things that I'm going to regret not having gotten to on this particular post, but there are other things to do and I just haven't anymore time.

Keep the challenges coming, though! I appreciate the interest in my opinion. As I've stated before: I'm not here to "win" anything. I'm just trying to do the best I can to provide balance.

Cheers to all!

Radioscope.

Radioscope mentioned how Jews' education gives them an advantage over others, making them into better people, and how seriously they take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

Here's some evidence to support him, some famous Jews:

Jeremy Ripkin, serial killer

Sam Berkowitz, serial killer

Joel Steinberg, child killer

Meyer Lansky, crime boss, ordered many "hits"

The Jewish founders of "Murder, Inc."

Sam Byck, who killed a security guard and two pilots while trying to hijack a plane to fly into the white house and so commit mass murder.

Dr.Goldstein, mass murderer

Olmert and Peretz, who murdered 1000 Lebanese civilians

Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Kissinger and Feith, who planned the Iraq war which killed 100,000 to 500,000 civilians.

The Mossad operatives who pulled of 911, killing about 3000 people

The assassins of JFK, General Patton, and hundreds of other leaders over the years

What Radioscope didn't mention is that according to the Talmud, "thou shalt not kill" does NOT apply to Gentiles!

... to the last posts.
First of all: I don't intend to veto discussion on religion and religious issues. We must respect ALL religions and religious feelings and acknowledge that religion is part of culture and sociology and has strongly influenced historical development. Religion has had and has still strong influence on politics. However, being a staunch secularist I think that since the Age of Enlightenment humans have realised that religion should belong to a separate sphere of reasoning, a sphere where rationality is not imperant. So my view, plainly, is that religion should not be brought into non-religious discussions. The fact that to this day and everywhere in the world religion interferes with all other spheres of reasoning (including science!) makes me wary, but lenient, towards use of religious argumentations.
As a second point, I did not give 'my' opinion on religious texts. I gave the point of view of lay historians on the historicity of some characters and events mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. No offence to any of the contributors' religious feelings was meant. So if I say that there is no historical evidence for Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, that's because to the best of my knowledge I know there is no independent archeological and manuscriptal record for these Bible and Quran characters. Likewise, about Jesus' non-historicity, that's what I know from the lay historians. Jesus is mentioned as a historical character only - to the best of my knowledge - in the works of one coeval historian: Flavius Josephus. The only copy and translation of Josephus' history treaty we received from the old scholars is (St.) Ambrose's own and, according to the lay historians, there are strong reasons to believe that Ambrose faked (introduced by his own hand) the passages relating to Jesus. It would be very interesting to hear Radioscope's own views on this subject matter. As I have learnt, a historical character 'like' Jesus did exist and was a zealot belonging to the sect of the Essenes. However, I do not want to insist on this issue and certainly not attack any christian belief. You are all free to believe in Abraham, Jesus as God's Son and the rest; ONLY, when it comes to scientific historical reasoning we should look at the historiographical record, first and foremost. So I am not trying to set any rules in this forum's discussion, I just think it would be wiser to limit religious issues within their historical contexts.

Next, in response to MonkeyZerg. Regarding the fate of Judaism without the historical event of the Khazars' conversion, I theorised - out of a bout of history-fiction - that Judaism would have gradually waned. It's speculative, though interesting, to wonder and I maintain that Jews (the real ones) would have almost all converted to either Christianity or Islam, were it not for the overwhelming numerical and intellectual contribution to Jewry coming from the steppe peoples (not only the Khazars converted!). The steppe peoples' conversion to Judaism reinforced, reinvigorated world Jewry in a fantastic manner when Judaism was already a waning faith. Yes, it was strong in moorish Spain, but there too it received substantial reinforcement from Khazaria when the latter state collapsed. The formidable repression of Judaism after the christian Reconquista would have indeed made that faith obsolete (in historical sense - no offence) in Europe, like Zoraoastrianism was in Asia, were it not for the Ashkenazis' formidable contribution. We can discuss further, maybe with our jewish friend Radioscope?
Now regarding 'jewish' scientists' opposition to renewable-energy research. I must disclose that I'm actually a scientist myself, surrounded by 'jewish' colleagues (some are friends too). So I know that the cold-fusion issue is not a red herring, but official 'jewish' science opposes - for the time being - its scientific and especially commercial development. Mark my word, the cold-fusion phenomen exists but it's very little understood, however the decision is to ignore it for the time being: don't fund research on it. Why? Simple. With an efficient cold-fusion cell in the backyard, anyone of us (even industrial plants) could fabricate all the electric energy we require from (heavy) water in a renewable way. This must not be allowed, not when the DISTRIBUTION of energy - fossil energy right now - is in the hands of the 'jewish' lobby. Can anyone control rainwater? Well, palladium maybe, but the cold-fusion technology is not perfected and who knows what the most efficient metal-alloy catalist would be in the end. But you get the picture now, right? As for hot fusion, you can forget it: it will never work on Earth. But the show must go on and billions get spent on this chimera because it makes many 'jewish' scientists' life so comfortable. So, back to history, it's just like in medieval Poland when ashkenazic 'Jews' controlled (amongst other trades) beer production and distribution, so they had to force their vile brew down the throats of the slavic peasants even when those did not want it (and we can still read about 'jewish' contempt for the drunken serfs). 'Jews' control oil- and gas-distribution and want to ram the stuff down our machines so long as they can. Terminating on the science-funding issue, fact is I keep seeing chimeras like hot-fusion and quantum-computing research being heavily funded, not the potentially truly revolutionary technologies. I have grown a belief that there is a political will behind all this. 'Jews' have dominated and dominate quantum research (think of the development of nuclear science, nuclear weapons), but here quantum computing is a young science where the chimera is to build computers with switches at the atomic scale. Your desktop computer would get reduced to a pin-head with the same computing power or much more, but it will never work in practice. Yet it is heavily funded, just like hot-fusion research, and for the same flimsical reasons. MonkeyZerg observed correctly, the 'Jews' don't get involved in renewable-energy research. Why? Because of the Palestine=Oil equation.

Now I have no time or rights, but I would just love to respond to Radioscope's last post. I will wait till he adresses - as he promised - the Ashkenazis=Khazars equation of ours. My other field is history, eurasian-steppe and east-european history in particular, so I wait for his counterattack. Genetics I understand too, so I will imediately rebutt all recent genetic 'reseach' wanting to disprove Koestler's theory (which actually was not his own at all). So far Radioscope has avoided direct confrontation with my own arguing, that's curious. He must be researching; good, but it's a confrontation with him I want and we shall all benefit from that. I only want to briefly express my disappointment at his last - definitely 'jewish' supremacist - attitudes. Statements like:

"you have to understand that we Jews already have the edge on you"

What a letdown, really Radioscope! Just because you 'Jews' study the Talmud since the moment you can walk, whilst we Gentiles read Winny-the-Pooh or play ball or go to the movies (which YOU make to indoctrinate US, like the beer anecdote above). Well, we do have our own edge on you. Some of us don't get indoctrinated from the young age (when you too are, in the talmudic ways); we are misfits in your ploy and grow up thinking clearly and independently. Where would the world be, now, without Voltaire, Kant? Still in the middle ages. Were they also Jews or 'Jews'? 'Jewish' Enlightenment came very, very late in history and only as a follow-up on the Gentile's.
And many of Radioscope's Israel-making myths I have debunked already!

history_worm

Well-said justice seeker, fantastic! I only just now read your last post.
It's just like what you say. "Thou shall not kill" does not apply towards the Gentiles. It's all encoded in the evil (sorry) babilonian-Talmud indoctrination they receive from a young age and also in the ways of the steppes, I must add.
Likewise, 'jewish' craving for progress, another of Radioscope's myths, means only progress of their own lot at the expense of the Goyim. In reality their progress is in the end our enslavement and finally the true giant leaps in history are taken by Gentiles in their attempts - not always successfully implemented - to set themselves free (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Fascism, ?).
Yet, we must not despise them. It's the way they are brought up, the millenium-old animosity between the nomadic and the sedentary worlds that we see surfacing in these stark contradictions. I can understand why there are so many bad 'jewish' apples, but I want to see atonement from their side too.

history_worm

In my last comment, the name "Jeremy Ripkin" should be Joel Rifkin, a Jewish serial killer of women. The crossdressing serial killer character in the Rifkin.

crossdressing serial killer character in the movie The Silence of the Lambs is based on Joel Rifkin.

This is just a little supplemental installment before I go on to handle history_worm's post titled "enough religion, more TRUE HISTORY," dated 01-08-07.

history_worm, most recently, you had this to say near the end of your post dated 01-11-07:

"I only want to briefly express my disappointment at his last - definitely 'jewish' supremacist - attitudes. Statements like:

'you have to understand that we Jews already have the edge on you'

What a letdown, really Radioscope! Just because you 'Jews' study the Talmud since the moment you can walk, whilst we Gentiles read Winny-the-Pooh or play ball or go to the movies (which YOU make to indoctrinate US, like the beer anecdote above). Well, we do have our own edge on you. Some of us don't get indoctrinated from the young age (when you too are, in the talmudic ways); we are misfits..."

Is there ANYBODY in this entire forum besides history_worm (...and justice seeker) who DID NOT understand what I said - and quite clearly, I might add - in my post to MonkeyZerg?

Here is the paragraph in its entirety:

"Whereas, most successful Gentiles (...and, guys: When I use the term "Gentile," I say it with greatest respect,) begin their professional careers several years after junior college or a major university, you have to understand that we Jews already have the edge on you. I do not say this with an ounce of bravado, but as a fact that must be examined."

So? What's so "Supremacist" about that? I didn't say that "worldly success is beyond your scope, so you'd just better give up," did I history_worm? I merely elucidated the idea that Jews may appear to enjoy a disproportionately greater advantage in world affairs (in comparisson to their Gentile counterparts) because - educationally - we have had a headstart on you. My comment was completely devoid of judgement or characterization concerning Gentiles, and you well know it. I even went out of my way to state that is was with the "greatest respect" that I used the term "Gentile," so as to make you aware that I am conscientious concerning the understanding of its use in this forum.

justice seeker, of course, nastily enjoys using the term "goyim" at every turn, imagining it to be a common epithet that Jews use; though, it is simply the hebrew word for "nations," and nothing more. Have there been times when Jews have used the term "goyim" contemptfully when referring to Gentiles? Absolutely. However, that is very much the exception rather than the rule. (Don't forget I said this. Very important!)

Chock another one up for me, guys. Seems like the majority of the self-analytical statements on this blog have thus far come from the only Jew involved with it.

You will never become better people unless you are willing to look candidly at your faults, admit them to yourselves, and attempt to change them. (...and, please, do not take this out of context as well. When I say "you," I mean it in the general sense. Does anybody not understand (...or, not wish to understand) this?)

What you think about Jews has nothing to do with me. I'm sorry for your belief that, when it comes to competing with Jews (...those tricky bastards!) your hands are tied helplessly behind your back; but, the fact that you believe that everything has been placed beyond your reach because of "the Jews" is a cop-out. Stop passing the buck! Go out there and make something of yourselves! Your hands are not chained to the computer keyboard. You are not locked up in your rooms. Be something, for God's sake; but, do not blame "the Jews" for your lack of initiative!

You don't have to go to the movies Jews make. There are many alternatives. There are independent movie makers. There are secular movie makers. There are Christian movie makers. You can watch films from Bollywood for all I care. Jews are not responsible for your lack of fortitude when it comes to resisting the products we deliver to the marketplace. You're welcome to boycott us at anytime, you know.

I have said on a previous post that Jews are not perfect and that we make mistakes just like anybody else. I have stated that Heaven is not the exclusive domain of Jews, but for all righteous individuals, regardless of their religious affiliation. I have said that I was ripped off by a co-religionist. Has this just flown right over your head, history_worm?

Further down, I wrote:

"You will not hear from my mouth that Jews can do no wrong."

Is there something ambiguous about this statement?

Let me, then, put it to you this way:

"Jews have done / are doing / and will do wrong."

We Jews are human beings (...just like you;) and, just as certainly as we do wrong, we also do right (...also, just like you.) That is the nature of being human.

A couple of paragraphs below that, I wrote:

"Balance what you are eager to believe about us, with things that have the power to challenge your preconceived notions about us."

It all comes down to YOU. Just as certainly as you are free to express your visceral distaste for "the Jews" and our allegedly percieved "Jewish Supremacy" in this forum, you may just as easily go out into this brave new world and achieve any success that you wish.

The question is: Are YOU up to it?

No cop-outs!

Radioscope.

[sneaky little zionist]
What you think about Jews has nothing to do with me. I'm sorry for your belief that, when it comes to competing with Jews (...those tricky bastards!) your hands are tied helplessly behind your back..........

Oh, I am sure it has everything to do with you sweetpie. Or else you wouldn't be here posting such long zionistic apologetic, and most obviously passive aggressive gunk - the usual tactics of a zionist in progress.

When it comes to "jews" being "smart", "funny", "make great husbands", while the "jew" gals are "good in bed"....[sic]...this all has been the invention of Zionists who own the media and movies, since the early 1900s.

Pure fanatic zionist invention shoved down our unsuspecting, stupid throats.

Yeah, your zionist sneaks have got us dumbed and down but good.

But your tribe is not so clever, nor intelligent......try the more appropriate words: wiley, conniving, sneaky, chicanery, con artist - professional no doubt as zionists possess the biggest wealth compared to other nonzionist groups.

Be careful.....very careful of that over-reaching arrogance you possess so naturally. You'd be crying and screeching like a baby swine if the Christian and Muslim people woke up one day and stopped buying your media and movies.

You need that Christian/Muslim money, which ever the dark morbid ways you can fill your coffin/coffers with, you need it and you want it baaaaad.

There's a whole lotta Christian/Muslim, and yeah even Jewish blood out there just soaking up the Middle Eastern terra cotta, all for those luscious, sexy greenbacks your zionist tribe gets so badly off on.

Notice how our zionist propagandist takes offense to the Apartheid "israel".

Well I don't blame zioscope, I take offense, too!

In fact, "israel" is much worse that Apartheid South Africa could ever have been.

*Non-Jewish Israelis can hardly buy or lease land in Israel, if at all. 95% Non-jews are discrimminated against and do not get the cream of the crop jobs in "israel" as do the so-called jews.

* A Jew or non-jew - when the government is desperate - from any country in the world [they very rarily can be Muslim or Arab] is guaranteed citizenship in Israel, while the Palestinians who have been there for centuries are oppressed, denied to return to their rightful homeland - this "israel" and they are perpetually persecuted.

*Palestinian license plates in Israel are color coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews.

*East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights are all considered by the entire world community, including the United States and the United Nations, to be occupied territory and NOT part of the State of Israel.

**Israel allots 85% of the water resources for Jews, and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories. For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is set aside for about 400 Jewish settlers, while the remaining 15% is distributed among Hebron’s 120, 000 Palestinians.

**The United States awards Israel $5 to $7 billion in aid each year from American tax dollars.

*US aid to Israel ($1.8 billion annually in military aid alone) exceeds the aid the US grants to the entire African continent. This aid is used both to buy American weaponry and to buy arms made in Israel.

*Israel is awaiting an additional $4 billion worth of American military hardware, including new F-16s and Apache and Blackhawk helicopters.

*As Israel’s main ally and supporter internationally, the United States is committed to maintaining the "Jewish" state’s “qualitative edge” in weapons over its neighbours.

*The U.S. administration has notified Congress on numerous occasions that "Israel" has violated the rules on how US-supplied weapons are used. (In 1978, 1979 and 1982 during fighting in Lebanon, and once after "Israel’s" bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.)

That's just a few facts. There's so much more than this. As zioscope loves to prepare us and make us feel all "cozy and secure" that IT will return.......so shall I.

NAEIM GILADI’S BANNED BOOK--BEN GURION’S SCANDALS: HOW THE HAGANAH & THE MOSSAD ELIMINATED JEWS

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

Banned in Israel and the United States, Iraqi-born Jew Naeim Giladi’s book, BEN GURION’S SCANDALS: HOW THE HAGANAH & THE MOSSAD ELIMINATED JEWS, self-published in the US in 1992, is again available worldwide.

It is for sale through www.dandelionbooks.net and bookstores throughout the world, with printing and shipping facilities in the UK and Europe. [Toll-free orders, U.S. & Canada: 1-800-861-7899]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/5/prweb65267.htm

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

BEN GURION’S SCANDALS delivers the painful truth about the Zionist rape of Palestine and Zionist activities during Ben Gurion’s political career.

“After reading Mr. Giladi’s devastating first-hand account of Zionist pillaging and massacre even of other Jews when necessary, it is not surprising that the book was banned,” states Carol Adler, president of Dandelion Books.

Giladi reports about the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor to the Middle East. Newly-vacated farmlands had to be plowed to provide food for the immigrants and the military ranks had to be filled with conscripts to defend the stolen lands.

States Giladi: “I write this book to tell the American people, and especially the American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because I was a part of it.

“Alex de Tocqueville once observed that it was easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.

Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the Arabs, were the pursuers of peace. The truth is far more discerning; bigger players in the world stage were pulling the strings.”

Giladi adds: “These players, I believe, should be held accountable for their crimes, particularly when they willfully terrorized, dispossessed and killed innocent people on the altar of some ideological imperatives.

“We Jews did not leave our ancestral homes because of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims.

And we Arabs--and I say Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home—we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the Jews.

“And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer… we Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and the Golan Heights.”

Pages

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer