See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: Albert Einstein A Plagiarist?
Source:
The Guardian - UK 8-29-03
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html
Published: Apr 5, 2006
Author: By Rory Carroll in Rome
Post Date: 2006-04-06 00:05:11 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 605
Comments: 122
Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'
Rory Carroll in RomeThursday November 11, 1999
GuardianThe mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.
Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.
Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc2 .
The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.
Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places.
"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse, Zipporah (#0)
Zip, can you fix this to eliminate the side to side scroll? Horse, have you flagged the insulters? ;)
A nation blind to their disgrace...
I will resort to the Bozo filter if it persists. Look on the bright side. He inspired me to find this old post from http://www.Rense.com that was on my second hard drive. I think Einstein was a great scientist, but Nikola Tesla was better. When he died, the FBI and the Navy stole all of his lab notes and seized all of his experiments. And they have never allowed any publication of his works. They are still under lock and key.
hmm I fixed some of the formatting but still something with the width in the orginal format.. Neil??? HELP!
He's talking about me, but I didn't post insults. My posts to him are #3 and #4, here. I do get tired of the simmering anti-semitism here, however, which is why I made the jab. But I made no personal comments about Horse or anyone else, as you can see for yourself. Incidentally, I also posted #2, but not to Horse, and it wasn't a personal comment either, but rather a criticism of the article's content. In my opinion, the author of the article doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, it contains the bald assertion: "But light-speed is nearly an indefinite figure." That's just wrong. c = 299,792,458.0000 m/s, exactly. It's defined. It's so easy to measure accurately, and with great precision, that the international metrology community changed the definition of the meter. It's no longer so many wavelengths of a certain krypton transition, it's now how far light goes in a vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. The two scratches on a platinum bar in Paris is at least two definitions ago, in case you are wondering. The meter is no longer a primary standard; it's now a derived quantity based on the speed of light, which is defined. That makes the statement "But light- speed is nearly an indefinite figure" almost as wrong as any statement could possibly be.
Thanks for posting this reference; I hadn't seen it. The one I'm really interested in is "Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903." I will look for that one. However, if de Pretto wrote that equation without understanding it's significance, then Einstein deserves major credit for articulating that significance, as well as synthesizing the whole of relativity. The book you excerpt contains some straw men, and some contradictions, but nevertheless has some validity as well. "His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work." If she was the sole author, which is a charge I have heard before and which might well be true, then what of de Pretto, and the idea that Einstein's friends communicated his word to him? The so-called Lorentz contraction and Poincare's contributions are taught, by name, in relativity classes, so the idea that Einstein is credited with everything regarding relativity is not true. "1919, (on dubious grounds) Dyson, Davidson and Eddington, made Einstein famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an attribution to Soldner, Soldner's 1801 hypothesis, that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars." Actually, there is a classical (Newtonian) explanation for light curvature as well, which is probably what Soldner hypothesized. But the relativistic curvature is half as much (IIRC) and the solar eclipse data confirmed that value, so Soldner was probably wrong about the magnitude of the effect, even if he first predicted it. Presenting a theory that correctly predicts the magnitude of light curvature is certainly Nobel-class material, although I happen to believe that Einstein's other famous 1905 papers on the photoelectric effect and on Brownian motion each individually could have earned that prize. ". . .Einstein did not invent the atomic bomb. In fact, he was ignorant of the concept of the bomb. [...]Due to his ignorance, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner had to explain the concept of the atomic bomb to Einstein, before he could write the letter." This is a straw man. Knowing the relationship of matter to energy doesn't mean that you automatically know that U235 can undergo fast-neutron fission, has a critical mass, and will therefore explode if purified and assembled rapidly in large enough quantity. I could go on in my criticisms of this book, but I am willing to accept as fact that Einstein neglected his duty to cite others. It is certainly true that Einstein was bothered by some details of QM (famously saying, "God does not play dice with the Universe") but his arguments against it were repeatedly and brilliantly refuted by Bohr - while they were both alive, much to Einstein's irritation - and a very recent experiment pertaining to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox has conclusively shown Einstein to have been in the wrong, at least about QM. So I don't worship him as infallible, if you happen to have thought so.
What's your definition of anti-semitism and I'd appreciate it if you'd cite a specific post by anyone here as evidence of "simmering anti-semitism." Is any criticism of zionists, jews, or Israel anti-semitism in your mind? Well, guess what? I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic.
A nation blind to their disgrace...
I can't fix this. It's too far gone. It's best that the original content is reposted.
I don't know what a "Zionist" is. Criticizing Isreal, e.g. government policy, is fine with me. But criticizing "Jews" - that is a race. Saying that something "is the fault of the Jews" is like saying something is the fault of "the blacks" or "whitey" and is explicitly racist. Not only is the argument unsophisticated, but it is symptomatic of the kind of collectivist thinking that leads to concentration camps, unless it's something that you can demonstrate is inseparable from people with Jewish ancestry. (Which will be difficult.) I have seen many threads here which tempted me to post "It's the Joooooos" but I have resisted till now. I'll post a few of them and ping you. Incidentally, when you capitalize "the" in the statement "I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic" it conveys the impression that of all the problems in the world, THE problem is Jooooos, and we can only solve it if we can discuss it. Is that really what you intend to convey, or am I hopefully misunderstanding you? I happen to think that socialism and radical Islam, both of which are ideologies independent of one's ancestry, are far greater threats to the country and the world, and I can debate why I think these things, based on history and where such ideologies might lead. But if someone is Jewish, you can't debate anything - his parents are Jews, therefore, he's a Jew, and therefore - what? He's the main problem? Please.
Incidentally, do you have any comments on the content of my posts, responding to the article?
You know that I agree with freeedom, and for the reasons he states. I would add that "open and free discussion" is an insufficient standard IMO. Truth should somewhere be featured.
Okay Neil as it is now .. I took me an HOUR to get it like it is now..so screw it LOL!
lol! I once read something about Einstein's wife, who was also a genius, perhaps being responsible for giving him his best ideas. Also, according to other sources I've read, this type of genius is found in males between 14 and 28 years of age. Einstein spent his life trying to show/prove what he had done by age 28. Many ideas in science are floated about and cross-germinated between scientists before it has legs; often about the same time. Then chance or the one with the most interest in self-promotion steps forward. So, this report doesn't surprise me.
”We have room but for one flag... We have room but for one language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is the loyality to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt
I've been around this issue for a few years now, starting with LP, and have learned a few things about it. First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction. Second, as you pointed out, criticism of Israel is reasonable and and fair play. But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them. I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime? Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. At least that's what one jew told me, in spite of the idea that the original blood jews are decended from Abraham. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow. Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement. What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA.
I suggest deleting everything but the leading info.
So basically if you owned this forum, you'd censor the posts of those you deem are racist or anti-semite or posts that, in your opinion, are not the truth (whatever that means, it seems to me that is nebulous and in many situations based on one's personal beliefs, perceptions, and experiences. I offer religion and the bible as an example). That being said, our purpose here is the provision of a venue in which the posting and sharing of information and opinions in an attempt to learn what is true is encouraged. Based on your comments, I'm left to conclude that neither one of you believe in free speech. With free speech comes the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't like what an individual writes, you have one of three options, debate him/her on it, ignore it, or leave the forum if you're uncomfortable with our policy of non- censorship. I hope you'll choose one of the first two.
very well said.
Then you should have no objection whatever to freeedom's posts. If you have no truth, you have absolutely nothing worth having. Things are not as simple as you suggest and "policy of non-censorship" is a cop-out IMO. You are in effect saying "there is no truth".
Anyone shown, repeat shown, to post lies, innuendo, character assassination etc. on more than one, repeat one, occasion would be thrown out. Quality not just quantity, Christine, is important, especially if you want 4um to attract good people and endure. Both tolerance and judgement, repeat judgement, are required but you cannot be afraid to exercise it and you must expect to be wrong now and then, which would not be the end of the world. People don't die here. You would eliminate a lot of the onerous stuff, not that it's currently a major problem, by simply making these rules known. My opinion -- I just post here and I obviously don't make the rules.
How about this statement. Our Iraqi foreign policy is the fault of some Jews. No problem there, right?
Well.. it is both Neil. Judaism is a religion true.. but THEY see themselves as a race.. Jewish atheists see themselves as Jews.. so if it were religion then how would that apply??
How about this statement. Our Iraqi foreign policy is the fault of some Jews. No problem there, right? Well according to Phil Zelikow it was:
Don't mean to intrude on this (well maybe I do) but when we had lots of posters here from another site temporarily some of them posted some over the top remarks about Jews, it was somewhat eye-opening. I am sensitive to white-bashing I see in the media and all over in general. It's no accident. At the same time in the past few years we have been bombarded with subtle messages about others. And I've considered the fact that Abe Foxman could be working against his own people, he has to know that the way he operates can only engender bad feelings on all sides. I would not want to be Jewish in this day and age, it's not any better than being white (or Arab) with all the bashing, accusations, death wishes and such. Both groups are being put down and made to appear dispicable. This is probably a much safer time period for the Mexicans or Chinese.
Malaysian prime minister tells Al-Jazeera U.S. attacked Iraq to protect Israel AP Worldstream; 4/6/2003 Dateline: DOHA, Qatar Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told Al-Jazeera in an interview broadcast Sunday on the pan-Arab satellite station that he believed the main purpose of the war on Iraq was to protect Israel. Mahathir, speaking in English with an Arabic translation voice-over, also said Syria, Pakistan and Iran could be the next U.S. targets. It was not clear when the Qatar-based station conducted the interview. The Malaysian leader has been a vocal opponent of the war. In the Al-Jazeera interview, he said the U.S. was trying to strip Iraq of the ability to defend itself and to control Iraqi oil. "But I believe the prime goal is achieving the ambitions of Israel, which is finishing off any source which could threaten Israel in the Middle East region," he added. He said if the United States succeeded in Iraq, "other countries will feel insecure." "Syria could be targeted on accusations of helping the Iraqis. Today, there is talk of cooperation between Pakistan and other countries on nuclear technology and it is believed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We don't know whether those (next U.S.) targets will be Pakistan and Syria for the same reasons that they are countries threatening the United States. So any country will feel insecure, among them Iran." Mahathir said hopes to restore an international order he said was shattered by the U.S. decision to attack Iraq despite opposition from other members of the United Nations are pinned on cooperation among countries opposed to war. "But at the same time, in order to stop the United States from proceeding in its behavior, it is for the American people to bring down its government, " he said.
I dont understand why this is so hidden... if it's the truth then let the truth be known.. so stupid IMO.
Neil, I need a grand. Can you help? Thanks,
I don't think they say whitey much, I hear trailer trash, anglos, also Anglo-Saxons seems to be the new, popular buzzword for European peoples, no matter what area of Europe their ancestors were from. We're just living in times where we are all being programmed to distrust and hate one another. Men are even being encouraged to hate women.
Yep, the truth is the truth. We're in Iraq for a few reasons, one chief reason
is the safety and security of Israel. Shall we google the phrase the NEW
MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation
building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest
is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?
Exactly the objective truth no matter where it takes you.
First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction. You're right, but I made a logical step from there. This is a political discussion forum, and if Jews are THE topic, and we're not happy about the way things are, I think we can presume that they are THE problem. Am I wrong? But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them. I do not number among them. I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime? I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead. Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. You're being excessively pedantic. I doubt that when Horse posts, "The Jews are in control of the press" he means, practicing religious Jews. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. I confess to using the term colloquially. But tell me, when Horse posts "The Jews control the press" - does his use of the term "Jew" have any more subtlety or complexity than my informal use of the term "anti-Semitic" does? I don't think so. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow. Sort of. But once again, I don't think those who own the media outlets are practicing, devout Jews, so I believe you and Horse disagree, even though you are apparently coming to his defense. Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement. There are a lot of things that are objectively in the Bible, e.g. stoning adulterers, that are (fortunately) long gone (except in radical Islam). I highly doubt that Jews don't pay margin interest or mortgage interest, even though some brokers and loan officers are undoutedly Jewish. (Or, ~all of them if you actually believed that Jews "control" banks and brokerage houses.) What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA. I have no evidence that Jews, today, actually do this. Do you? The fact it's in their holy book doesn't mean it's still practiced. One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers. If you want to talk about political correctness.
Not at all. I wrote "I don't think it should be censored, but I don't think it should be ignored, either." on the other Einstein thread. Perhaps you missed it, so I'm including the link for your convenience.
Can you not see the difference between vs Accusing Einstein of plagerism because he's Jewish and the press for hiding it because they're controlled by Jews (ie accusations based on who they are, rather than the actions they actually committed)? Were Einstein merely included in a larger heterogenous group of alleged plagerists, there might be a point, but it does seem he was singled out for accusation based on a Jewish connection, not on a scientific peer review. Do we not advocate freedom and the rule of law for all, regardless of race? We should be questioning/discussing what specific people or organizations have done, not for what racial or religious heiritage we impute to them. It's one thing to note that terrorists praise Allah and then wrap themselves in bombs and blow up people, and make the connection that those Muslim or Islamic terrorists kill people. But it's quite another (and wrong) to imply that Muslims or Islamists as an ethnic group are terrorists. The same applies to Jews. Castigate (or accuse) specific individuals (or organizations) for what they have done, not for what ethnic background they belong.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well then, we live in a dangerous world. In many nations the discussion of what you mention above is a crime. IMHO, that thought is coming to America. Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?
I dont have a 'dog' in this fight Starwind I've not read the entire article I havent had time.. My comment was to JT.. re the war in Iraq nothing more or less.
That's a nice thought, but that isn't the real world Starwind. We tend to generalize. Blame it on the human condition. I see nothing nefarious here. As a Catholic, why is it I don't become hypersensitive when my religion is discussed? No one I know does. Plug in Jew for Catholic, and some take offense. That’s their problem.
I don't have a good answer for that. It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, but it could be something else. (It could also be because The Jooooos control everything, but I reject that argument.) One thing I'll stand by: there are a lot of foolish, dangerous, or outright insane people in positions of political power everywhere across the globe, and one shouldn't look to the duly enacted laws of any country as paragons of reason, rationality, beneficence, or virtue.
Agreed. I'm advocating the 'ideal'. But if this forum 'generalized' only against catholics, or if numerous posts mentioning Ted Kennedy (or any Kennedy) generalized about Irish Catholics being the cause of the world's problems, the forum would begin to take on a distinctly different taint, would it not? Freedom rightly noted a "simmering anti-semitism", and in absence on this forum of any simmering anti-catholicism, or simmmering anti-Islamism, etc, then it would appear Jews are singled out more often than not, and as this is intended to be an uncensored discussion forum, he ought to be able to call attention to it without someone taking offense, No?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The irony here is that doing this promotes the very paranoia that is trying to be averted, just as Zundel's prosecution is promoting. People see that and the cite it as evidence of control by jewish or zionist interests albeit indirect. Seeing Zundel get prosecuted makes me personally sympathize with those crying foul against the Jews. Zundel committed no crime worthy of a single minute behind bars. I don't like such paranoia and the best way to dispel it is to permit candid discussion.
now may I ask what was the point of the use of this ?? Was it to then undermine ANY objective discussion of the topic making it seem as if they're KOOKS or racists of some type??? SO if anyone says anything critical of Israel or our foreign policy AIPAC or spying or anything else. Will then then feel that this will be used on them?? I think it's outrageous that in an open discussion that people must use hot button words in order to sway discussion but have at it.. since this is a free speech forum.. just thought I'd ask.
Because anyone with a Jewish mother is also considered a jew even if as a convert. I pointed out the other day that this means that if any one of your maternal ancestors was a converted or bloodline jew, then you are a jew. You could be a jew and not know it. In fact there's no way you can certain you are NOT a jew.
I was lampooning those who use the word that way, and say it that way. As might already be clear from my other posts, I don't have much respect for those people, and I think they're entirely worthy of ridicule.
This is pretty weak, Neil. I presume you would not permit someone advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it your decision (or Christine's, for that matter). So you DO have lines that are not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or something more worthy?
I'd say yes, you're wrong, as "presuming" on a discussion forum doesn't work very well. Well, maybe not but if "jew" means differet things to different people then that needs to be clarified. Sure, the term anti-semite has come to mean "anti-jew" in todays language. Again, then we have confusion over what "jew" actually means. I don't know what the actual practice is, but it's my firm understanding that it's a general teaching that jews do not charge each other interest. Perhaps there are marginal exceptions. It should be easy to verify or dispel whether this is practiced today. Good idea to check. But I was informed by a practicing jew that it is in fact the case. I'm open to correction. Fair enough point and any muslim that tries to carry this out ought to, if necessary be gunned down before hand in self defense of the jew/christian/hindu/buddest/whatever (infidel, I suppose).
I can, sure. And for the record, I am hard pressed to downgrade Einstein from his status as a brilliant scientist. Had he died shortly after his publication, then there'd be question, but there's no way he could have continued to lead in his field if all credit for his genius actually belonged to another. His source would have quickly been recognized as the true genius and supplanted Einstein. Perhaps there is some truth in this other fellow's studies, but if so I'd consider it likely an exceptional matter to Einstein's record.
Not on its face, it's not.
I'd say yes, you're wrong, as "presuming" on a discussion forum doesn't work very well. Ok, fair enough. I won't presume anything. Please tell me: what exactly is meant to be conveyed, when someone writes that Jews are "THE" issue. Not "an" issue, capital T-H-E issue. Enlighten me, please. [Re: Horse's comment] Well, maybe not but if "jew" means differet things to different people then that needs to be clarified. What possible meaning could it have that makes "The Jews control the press" somehow a reasonable position to take in an argument? Please enlighten me here, too. I don't know what the actual practice is, but it's my firm understanding that it's a general teaching that jews do not charge each other interest. Perhaps there are marginal exceptions. So you don't know, and I don't either. Let's suppose you're correct, however. For the sake of argument: Jews don't charge each other interest. So what? Family members sometimes don't charge each other interest either, maybe that means Jews just think of each other as family members. Does this somehow justify the discrimination and persecution that has resulted? Would this fact have any bearing on whether "the Jews control the press" or whatnot? No and no. So there must be something else to it. Incidentally, it might be in violation of law for "non-arms-length transactions" to occur - in which case, prosecute or change the law. Fair enough point and any muslim that tries to carry this out ought to, if necessary be gunned down before hand in self defense of the jew/christian/hindu/buddest/whatever (infidel, I suppose). Careful there!! You're one millimeter away from justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing War On Terror.
The way people practice their religion has a lot to do with their cultural attitudes and characteristics. The majority of muslims just want to live their lives and live right, and yes, peacefully. There are indeed the fanatics who want to kill infidels, but those types are found in all major religions. A few years ago in India a bunch of Hindus went on a rampage killing muslims in their mist. Someone tried to post that article on FR but it was taken down right away as all muslims must be bad guys now and never victims.
Well said.
Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal? I don't have a good answer for that. It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, I don't buy that reasoning, too many Europeans suffered and died as well during WWII. Most European countries fought against Germany, some countries were occupied by them; for instance the Dutch hate the Germans to this day for the starvation and maltreatment of the Dutch people by the German occupiers, though there was a scarcity of food all over Europe as the allies and Germany bombed many railroads halting shipment of supplies including food, plus most of the men were engaged in war. The whole nazi thing has morphed into all of Europe being guilty for what Hitler did to the Jews. Time has a way of changing factual history.
Correct, of course. What constitutes "more worthy" is subjective. To me, quashing reports on Zundel's prosecution would be bad, as would his case that the number of Jews (and others) killed in Auzwich (sp?) is/must have been far less than the 4.2 million accepted for the first 40 years after WWII. Along with that, discussion about the powers that are behind his prosecution must be permitted, and that would target the jewish lobby. But I also agree with and have echoed Starwind's point that blaming alleged plagerism on one person who happened to be jewish on a jewish conspiracy is unwarranted. I guess I'm just saying that overreaction by jews/jewish interests, which does and is happening (ref: Zundel), helps to promote the very so-called anti-semitism that jews claim is victimizing them. And as I said, seeing what's happening to Zundel, for me, lends credence to those who claim there is a pro-jewish conspiracy. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree that Zundel's prosecution makes jews look bad.
Is it okay if I just delete the bulk of the article? The book excerpts could be reposted, but it's messing up the thread and the bulk of the article is not readable in it's present form anyway. May I? Besides that, the joooos are holding me at knifepoint and they'd appreciate it as well.
Let's talk about apples; it's hard for people to identify with individual apples. Suppose you want to make apple pie, and you have a dozen apples. Suppose also that you are informed, just as you begin, that one of the apples will make you ill. Do you use them all in the pies? Toss them all out and get a new batch? Or try to identify which one is the bad one? Suppose you can draw from two batches. Apples from the first batch come with a 1/1000 chance of illness. Apples from the second 1 in 50. Do you draw from both batches, neither, one of them, do some testing? Maybe the second batch is cheaper; or the severity of illness is not the same. The answer depends on the relative costs and benefits -- to you, as measured by you -- of each of the options available to you. Is it wrong to say to someone "don't get that second kind -- it'll make you sick"? (The making of a chocolate shake would work equally well as an example.)
FIRST an FYI .. Christine and
*I* are the forum owners of 4 ..NEIL is our paid webmaster and what he has said
is his opinion.. that I suppose had to be stated YET again.. AND I as one of
the forum owners, *I* DO NOT appreciate YOU making it sound as if discussion
and/or criticism can be equated to as YOU put it "advocating the killing of
blacks, or Jew, or whomever".. SO who draws the lines here on matters for
discussion? YOU? This is and will remain a free speech forum .. topics of
discussion will not be censored.. other than advocating violence in some form..
or other things that are illegal. That's it in a nutshell..plain and simple END
of that discussion.
Besides that, the joooos are holding me at knifepoint and they'd appreciate it as well. :P Fine with me Neil.. whatever works at this point.. just watch your back ;P
Comparing people with apples is like comparing oranges with apples (something like that). It's far easier for people to say nasty things about others than to say good things, and people prefer to believe the nasty things, so a lot gets blown out of proportion on both sides, like all Jews want to kill us, or all European peoples are responsible for nazi Germany. Then people burn with anger and lust for revenge and the killings start back and forth and the never-ending cycle continues.
There are some bits that are questionable, IMO. But it's interesting, because it's those bits that have been seized on by critics -- the hope being that those who have not yet read it won't. The other criticisms are that it doesn't address the whole picture (which is true), or doesn't adequately address some aspect of particular importance to the critic. This is normal in peer review. But peer review is often just a mechanism for orthodoxy, even in the hard sciences. As the authors say, those other aspects have been addressed elsewhere by others.
It is true that when people unite economically, they become more powerful than the sum of their parts. It is thereby possible for a minority of people to obtain disproportionate control over a majority that doesn't simalarly unite. This is why the USA, having just 5% of the world's population, became a dominent world power, and why the European union came about, to unite the various independent countries into an economic force greater than the sum of it's parts. So unfortunately, if this principle is applied to a special segment of people based on religion, skin color, hair color, whatever, then I do believe it's possible for that group to, on average, rise in social status above, on average, those not in the group. Does that mean that people have no inherent right to give preferential economic treatment to whomever they will? Well, first tell me if it's alright for a white store owner to refuse to sell stuff to blacks. There are good arguments to answer yes and no. With increased economic power comes increased social power. For purposes of this discussion that's unfortunate, as it does lay a *theoretical* groundwork for supporting a so-called "jew conspiracy" of media control. Again, this is IF jews have a preferential economic system in place that aids jews above and beyond that of non-jews, which beyond the interest charging practices, I do not know/believe to exist. Again, I'll emphasize this is *theoretical* on my part only. I'm not citing evidence, only theory, and this theory can just as easily apply to tall skinny people taking advantage of people who are not both tall and skinny. Not at all. Please don't make me barf.
I've made this point many times. There are about a billion muslims in the world. If all of them, or even a substantial minority, took the kill the infidels literally, then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today. It would be far, far worse, even considering Iraq and the presence of Israel.
Certainly it's hard for people to think in a disinterested way about the Apple of God's Eye.
I agree, after all nothing has come down from the Mount recently, but all things considered - it's dead on :)
The Delphi method has traditionally been a technique aimed at building an agreement, or consensus about an opinion or view, without necessarily having people meet face to face, such as through surveys, questionnaires, emails etc. This technique, if used effectively, can be highly efficient and generate new knowledge. To build consensus, the Delphi method often uses the Hegelian dialectic process of thesis (establishing an opinion or view), antithesis (conflicting opinion or view) and finally synthesis (a new agreement or consensus), with synthesis becoming the new thesis. All participants in the process shall then either change their views to align with the new thesis, or support the new thesis, to establish a new common view. The goal is a continual evolution towards 'oneness of mind', or consensus on the opinion or view. The person co-ordinating the Delphi method can be known as a facilitator, and facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analysed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.
I said no such thing and YOU need to read my post more carefully.
whatever.
WTC bombing - 9-11 - assassination of Israeli atheletes - hotel bombings in Bali and Africa - Embassy bombings in Africa - Cole bombing in Yemen - Bombing of marine barracks - London subway and bus bombings - Madrid train bombings - Richard Reid, attempted shoe bombing of a passenger jet liner - Phillipines bombings - West Berlin nightclub bombing - attempted attack on major Saudi oil facility - attempted missile shootdown of Israeli jetliner in Africa - successful shootdown of TWA 800 (covered up) - attempted bombing of Sky Needle in seattle - Suicide bombings in cafes, bookstores, and other places in Isreal, Afghanistan, and Iraq, some targeting children - Murder of Buddists in Tibet, other places - beheading of non-combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and their broadcast on TV - US embassy taken hostage in Iran - Beslan school massacre - Dubrovka theater siege in Moscow - Riots in France and Australia - Rapes in Australia and Scandanavia - DC snipers - Sgt. Hasan Akbar's grenade attack on fellow US soldiers - attempted truck bombing of a hotel where journalists were staying - successful bombing of a wedding in Jordan, at a hotel where Westerners were thought to be staying - murder of Theo Van Gogh - riots over cartoons throughout the world ... Relative state of peace, indeed!
As I said, we would not be in the relative state of peace we have today. What we'd have would make the list you gave look like certified olympic events.
Does it matter? Look to fake name and the plagiarism of Martin Luther King - he got a national holiday and the attention of another Manchurian Patsy, for all the trouble he caused. Who cares anything about Uncle Al? Bush plagiarizes Hitler; who says a word? Does it matter?
With Americans conducting War Crime invasions and occupations - threatening more; where is this "...relative state of peace we are in today?" Did I miss something?
Late to the thread - but that is certainly correct. Satan is having a ball with the whack-jobs that are ruling this world.
Hilbert's work was stolen by Einstein as well. And if you do some more checking, I think you will find it was Hilbert who had the connections to the Italia, De Pretto. The time frame fits with the 1905 date I've seen previously. Just some old information which pops into my head. ;0) Einstein was indeed a plagiarist, and also an unabashed Zionist. This in itself is damning from my point of view. One needs to see the devious and evil agenda of the Zionists to see just what is driving the insanity of the world today. And the money power is controlled by the Zionists and their shills, and has been for many centuries. The fact that Zionism has its roots in Marxism and the Talmud and other sects of reform Judaism is of great significance. Look up Lubavitchers on the web to see one of the kookier bunch of Jews floating around out there.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
Ok, so I've browsed the full paper. I would not characterize the paper as anti-semitic in any sense, nor do I think dissecting 'accusations of anti-semitism' as a political ploy necessarily makes one anti-semitic either. But nor would I characterize the paper as entirely balanced and truthful. It contains a fair degree of spin, and it largely ignores Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland; that the Balfour Declaration originally intended to turn over the British mandate of Palestine (won from the Turks in WWI), but was subsequently partitioned into "Palestine" west of the Jordan and the "Transjordan" (given to Arabs and Palestinians exclusively); and that the area west of the Jordan was further whittled down such that by the time the "zionists" moved in (1948), the Gaza strip and West Bank were not included. The paper argues that new, better research shows the Zionists were more at fault for whatever befell them than was heretofore acknowledged. I don't know how true the new research is, but I'm not impressed with it's one-sided presentation. The authors hypocritically ignore that the world seems to expect Israel to negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat (Munich? Entebbe? Achille Lauro?) who wouldn't be tolerated as dog-catcher anywhere else. To ignore the political repurcussions of forcing Israel to negotiate with such regardless of any legitimacy the underlying Palestinans may have, is assinine to put it charitably. But that is what the world expected of Israel, wasn't it. To the Palestinan's detriment, as if the world cared, but again hypocritically expecting Israel to pretend the world cared about the Palestinians. But that doesn't make it anti-semitic, IMO. Further, while the paper does footnote its claims with its sources (which I greatly appreciate), I disagree with some of the conclusions or motivation inferred. While Israel does have an effective lobby, that doesn't change the nature of the problems fomented by Soviets, Chinese, Europeans, Arabs, and the US. All have had a hand in manipulating events to the breaking point. Not one country or world body can claim innocence, nor the Israelis. They have been heavy-handed needlessly at times. Lastly, I think attributing the commonly stated motivations to the various actors is naive in the extreme. Ralph Reed for example doesn't care one wit about genuine biblical prophecy just as Abe Foxman doesn't care one wit about who is really defaming Jews. The neocon's couldn't care less if Israel is safer if they can actually subvert the middleeast governments before China and Russia do. It's about energy costs and the US Dollar, not protecting Israel from Saddam Hussein. They're all protecting their respective political power bases, truth be damned. But just because they're all grinding their own axes, doesn't mean they are rational or smart about it. Making mistakes or being heavyhanded doesn't mean the problems are simple or all of ones own making. I personally have no problem with exposing the influence of lobbies, AIPAC or other. I'd like to see them all exposed, all cards on the table. If anyone can make a case for Federal largesse on the merits, let's see it. Our elected officials can no longer be trusted to exercise judgement without our scrutiny, sadly. Yes, the charge of anti-semite is easy to raise and IMO, the ADL, AIPAC, etc have "cried wolf" way too often. The proof is in the preemptive innoculation by warning in advance of charges of "anti-semitism" for anything these days. But that doesn't mean that hatred of Jews for being Jews doesn't exist, and conspiracy theories blaming Jews for being complicit in something (based on the "proof" that they're Jews) abound. I'm frankly quite alarmed at the German prosecution of "holocaust deniers" because they choose to argue material evidence and wish to explore the facts and conduct research. If they're falsifying facts then scientific, forensic, or historic peer review is the appropriate venue to deal with that - not legal prosecution. That said, it also seems evident to me that some of the "revisionists" do in fact seem to have a hatred of, and obsession with, most things Jewish and seem to expect Jews as a race to permit their own extinction, and that is incredibly naive, and further exacerbates the hatred and fear all around. Extremist claims, whether Abe Foxman's fears of Christians savaging Jews after watching Mel Gibson's "Passion of The Christ" or accusations that Einstein was a plagerist, etc, all belong in the round file. There are extremeists on all sides. We ought not let them whipsaw us off-center.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I ONCE HAD A MULIE COW, MULIE WHEN SHE'S BORN Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
So much here Starwind, where to begin? Lets go point by point. You state that “Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland.” It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s. Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of “prior possession?”
Yes, using land ceded by the British, won from the Ottoman Turks in WWI Not entirely, no. The Ottoman Turks were occupiers. They lost in WWI. The British became the new "occupiers". The British, the "zionists", the Arabs, and ultimately he UN agreed a much smaller portion (west of the Jordan) would be "Israel" and Transjordan would be for the Arabs and "palestinians". The palestinians didn't want to leave. So they didn't. Israel squeezed in except for the Gaza and West Bank. Egypt and Syria escalated conflict leading upto the 1967 war, Israel preempted, won the war and kept Gaza and the West Bank. At which point they were occupying roughly the land they had prior to the succesive conquests of Babylonians, Alexander, Seleucids, Ptolemys, and then the Romans followed by the Arabs (around 700 AD).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
One thing about this so-called European guilt. This is the end result of the brainwashing instigated by the Marxist Jews after the war with the full consent of the Allies and the collaboration of the Soviets. If you have a problem with this, you need to study the period of history directly after the end of the war from a diferent perspective than what you seem to be coming from. I say this with full knowledge of the truth of the matter. The Court historians have written the victor's version of history, but it is rife with lies and deceit. “We are all ensnared by the tentacles of a system of social control, operating at all levels of society, which demands the blood sacrifice of millions of the cream of our youth every generation in bloody aggression to maintain prosperity. The primary intellectual and spiritual fundaments of this system spring from what passes for history, and are percolated down to the lowest member of society via a well-coordinated machine which leaves nothing unsullied by its poisonous output.” Willis A. Carto, 1983
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
So the Israelis squeezed in under the flag & authority of the UN? I can understand why the Palestinians didn't want to leave; this was their home prior to the first official action of the new global entity. This, to me, seems a simple case of land theft.
Nor more theft than what Jews suffered previously in 20th Century Europe or under the various occupations of the Babylonians, Alexander, Seleucids, Ptolemys, and then the Romans followed by the Arabs. Agreed. I can empathize with the plight of the "little guy". But the Arab leader King Faisal negotiated, essentially, the entire Transjordan for those "palestinians", so there was an effort to compensate them and provide a homeland for them as well. Now it can be argued that perhaps Faisal did not have their 'proxy' as it were to negotiate on their behalf. However true that may be, Faisal was the Arab King at the time and the Zionists can't very well be blamed for believing him. At the time, Palestine was no prize, it had been stripped of many of its resources, water was scarce. The Transjordan was supposedly richer but I can understand people not wanting to be uprooted. People were trying to fair. It was not a simple situation.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
But the Arab leader King Faisal negotiated, essentially, the entire Transjordan for those "palestinians", And who appointed Faisal to such a position? Wasn't he a creation of the British empire?
But by this standard shouldn't you be the first person tossed out on their ear? Is this what you want?
You just don't understand narrow minded obsessed nuts. There are actually two standards. One for himself and one for everyone else on the planet. He's stating the second standard in his post. It doesn't apply to him. It only applies to everyone else. So there. KOOK! ROTFLOL!
Faisal was at various times King of Syria and Iraq, as well as the leader of Hashemite tribes in the Mid East (I'm not entirely sure about "boundaries"). Also, if you recall the movie "Lawrence of Arabia", Faisal was the King played by Anthony Quinn. What was mostly true was how Faisal drew together the various disparate tribes into a cooperation with the British (under "Lawrence"'s guidance) to defeat the Turks and capture Damascus. For this cooperation Faisal and the Arabs would have a united kingdom from Iraq to Morocco. So in the sense the British "united" the arabs under Faisal against a common enemy (the Turks) yes they created him. But Faisal did have his Hashemite pedigree behorehand as well as king of Syria and Iraq at one time. Given that "Palestine" was previously under the control of the Turks, one can not expect a formal designation of a ruler or (spokesperson) other than a Turk until the Turks were defeated. It would seem Faisal by racial similarity to the Palestinians and by being the nearest legitimate king-like figure, in some sense stepped into a vacuum.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
OK. When you put it that way there does seem to be a weird kind of logic to it. I'm glad you are here. I don't think I could get into phaedrus' head like you can. Someday you'll have to explain byeltsin to us.
SO Faisal was the King played by Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia ??? You're a walking history lesson, Starwind :)
Don't let the kooks push you around. We have many advantages over normal people. Our definition of "truth" can mean many different things at once. We are unconstrained! I have heard that many normal people don't even have voices in their heads to guide them. They are pushovers! Also, there are many more nuts than normal people! Remember that! ROTFLOL!
The British and French Mandates were a product of the Versailles Treaty and this was a late form of colonialism. The Zionist Jews were attempting to gain control of the Holy Land as per the promises made to them by the British in the Balfour Declaration. When the British split Palestine off from the rest of Transjordan, Chaim Weizmann was heard to complain, "Already you are making it smaller." A simple situation it was not, and the conniving Jews made the situation that much worse.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
And the British split off a portion of eastern Transjordan and gave it to Iraq. This is the current boundary line. Jordan, also known as southern Syria, was created to stop Syrian access to the Persian Gulf by way of the rivers in Iraq. This tactic was part and parcel of the British attempts to keep Arab nationalism under wraps, a policy picked up later by the U.S., which we see in the form of the CIA-sponsored coups d'etat which overthrew lawfully elected governments in both Iraq and Iran.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
I have heard that many normal people don't even have voices in their heads to guide them. They are pushovers! Also, there are many more nuts than normal people! Remember that Hey BAC, would you be able to give us a proper definition of "normal?" Watch you step on this one. Or should I say, "Get way out on that limb so I can saw it off behind you." ;0)
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
Feel free to drop that little tid bit at your next soire'. Yeah, the chics really go for the history/movie buffs :-/
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
And our meddling continues to this day. Bush, and his
cabal won't be satisfied with anything less than a Middle East of, by and for
Mother Israel. But what I find really weird is the strange brew of religion
and politics that they’re introducing to the populice. It’s evil to its core.
Isn’t it amazing that the most secular of all institutions, the UN, created
what some consider the most hollowed of all lands. The entire mess is a
cluster f**k.
I will. I love that movie. I'm due for my yearly viewing soon.
One thing about this so-called European guilt. This is the end result of the brainwashing instigated by the Marxist Jews after the war with the full consent of the Allies and the collaboration of the Soviets. That might be so. The reason I said it is because I got to know several Europeans in grad school, and all of them mentioned something like this. I did talk politics with them. If you have a problem with this, you need to study the period of history directly after the end of the war from a diferent perspective than what you seem to be coming from. First, why should I do anything at all about it? It's coming from them, not from me, I'm just the messenger. If anyone needs to study anything, it's the Europeans who told me about it, and not me. Second, you are awfully quick to tell me about what you think are the limitations of my knowledge, based on your own assumptions about me. I submit you don't know as much about me as you think. In all likelihood, you don't know as much about world history as you think either. Third, I have a problem with Marxists whether they are Jewish or not - in much the same way that I have a problem with plagiarists, whether they are Jewish or not (to attempt to bring the thread back on topic). I say this with full knowledge of the truth of the matter. Yes, you are the indisputible world expert on this matter, and many others no doubt. In your own mind, at least. Everyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant - according to you. No other explanation for disagreement fits into your worldview. "Full knowledge" indeed!
Still anxiously awaiting enlightenment about the meaning intended to be conveyed by: "Jews being THE issue," and about what particular interpretation of "Jew" makes the statement: "The Jews control the press" a reasonable position to take in a debate. Points you inexplicably neglected to make in your follow-up posts to me. I await your wisdom.
I was going to include a response about that but thought it a bit petty so I deleted it. The first reference to "THE" in all caps was #6 by christine: Not "THE jews" or "THE issue" but "THE topic". If you want to know more detail about what christine meant by this reference, I'll have to refer you. If you're instead referring to my statement about what the intended meaning of "jew" is since it seems to mean different things to different people, then you infer some negative connotation that simply isn't there. I'm not defending or attacking anyone on either side of THE topic. I'm just trying to communicate.
Not true but I'd be pleased to have you cite any post where you think I've indulged in any of these bad habits. Bear in mind that if someone has been called a liar and has in fact lied, that is acceptable. Truth is an adequate defense against a charge of slander.
lol ... not bloody likely.
Regarding Palestine, have a listen to Ben Freedman back in '61 who had first hand experience how things are shaped and conveniently omitted from our history books. Expect a 'reality shift' if you haven't heard this before. http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html (Check the 40 minute excerpt first)
Thanks for the link, Rainingfish. I've enjoyed this thread.
Likewise JT and most welcome, pass it on. ; )
Pinging you to the Freedman speech posted by Rainingfish since you said you didn't know what Zionism is. Perhaps you'll have a better understanding of what I meant by THE topic after listening to this or by thinking two words--Ernst Zundel.
I looked up Zundel on Wikipedia. What does the fact that an individual is being prosecuted for Holocaust denial, have to do with whether or not "Jews control the press," etc, as Horse stated and to which I objected? Furthermore, what exactly should I make of your use of "THE topic?" Not "a topic" and not even "the topic" but "THE topic." Makes me think that you somehow see Jews behind everything worth discussing on this board. Please tell me that I misunderstand.
You *do* misunderstand, the question is why? I think the intentions of the posters, and the owners of this forum are clear. THE topic is a topic that isn't allowed a full airing on other forums. Surely you know this. To toss insults around (see above) leads me to believe you'd like nothing more than to control speech. Sorry, you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Surely you know this. Nope, but thanks for telling me. To toss insults around (see above) leads me to believe you'd like nothing more than to control speech. Sorry, you're in the wrong neighborhood. I haven't insulted anyone, directly, here (e.g. xyz is a moron) - but for an uncensored, free speech forum people here are awfully quick to feel insulted by what I write. I have already stated twice that I wouldn't censor, but I wouldn't ignore either. There - that makes three times. As for THE topic, all I can add is this: Local Jew Feels Left Out Of Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy Well, maybe I can add a joke, too: A Rabbi walks into a bookstore, and sees one of his friends reading Nazi literature. He asks the guy, why are you reading that? He responds "Well, the stuff you like to read shows us as weak, oppressed, victims, but in the stuff I'm reading we control the press and media, banks, governments, all businesses, international institutions, and everything else of significance. Which would you rather read?"
I'd laugh at your joke if it weren't for the fact that our military is currently engaged in reshaping the face of the Middle East for the benefit of Israel.
You do misunderstand. I don't think that, but so what if
I did? Haven't I the right to think that and the right to express it as do you
to think that Islamic fascists are responsible for all terrorism? I'm not
saying that you do, but if you did, you'd have a lot more freedom to say so
without being labeled anti-semetic or racist. When's the last time someone was
forced to shut up and/or prosecuted and imprisoned for these opinions as
Zundel and others have been for voicing their opinions on zionists/jews?
model citizen...no discipline
Thanks for Prohibition and the war against drugs. Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks. Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!- William S Burroughs
You write as if criticism of Islamic terrorists is the moral equivalent of criticism of Isreal. To my knowledge, Isreal does not call for the destruction of any or all Arab states, while at the least Palestine and Iran have called for the deaths of Isrealis, and the destruction of Isreal. Incidentally, Zundel isn't being prosecuted here (to my knowledge) and so your citation of his example has little bearing here. Yes, other countries are unjust for their own reasons, but that doesn't prove anything about what goes on in America. Certainly it doesn't prove that "Jews control the press" here - if anything, it proves the opposite, because if they did, they would probably run editorials supporting similar laws here, and that hasn't happened.
With Israel deeds, rather than words is their motto.
If Isreal wanted to destroy any countries, they could have. But in 50 years, they haven't.
I agree completely. Their destructive ability came courtesy of the US
taxpayer, btw. I also believe that no nation in the Middle East has the
capability to destroy Israel. So, all their paranoia over hyperbolic political
speech is nothing more than theater for the ill informed.
I agree completely. Well then let me remind you of your own words, "Deeds, not words." Their destructive ability came courtesy of the US taxpayer, btw. Yes, and that's annoying. Something someone said a long time ago about avoiding "entangling alliances." (And about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and something else about legal tender being only gold and silver, and something else about enumerated federal powers, and ...) I also believe that no nation in the Middle East has the capability to destroy Israel. So, all their paranoia over hyperbolic political speech is nothing more than theater for the ill informed. Maybe not any one country, but maybe quite easily a collection of them. The attack on Osirk (the nuke plant in Iraq) was brilliantly conceived and executed, and weighs on the question, incidentally. AFAIK, it was attacked when it was supposed to be vacant (on a Sunday afternoon) and before any nuclear material had been moved there, meaning, no contamination. They killed one person, and set Iraq's nuclear capability back years. I think that makes a pretty clear statement about Isreal's priorities, going out of their way to not kill civilians or harm anything else other than nuclear capabilities. Even the US isn't so honorable, consider e.g. the attacks on passenger trains, refugee camps, and maternity hospitals in Belgrade.
Excuse me, you Zionist lap dog, but just because Israel hasn’t chosen to destroy its neighbors doesn’t mean it isn’t a vile, wicked country. It is. The list of their atrocities this sandpit has committed upon the weak and ill armed is beyond the scope of my patience at the moment. Suffice to say, they, and their lemming supporters, are a curse to America and the Middle East. If I wake up in the AM, and the dump has disappeared into the sea, the global applause will be deafening. Stick that up your bagel.
Please see my undoubtedly incomplete list of Islamic atrocities posted in #64. Oh yes, and one other thing: Have a nice day.
Actually my day is going to suck. I'll be watching the illegals on parade, knowing full well that Morris Dees and his prick-in-arms, Abe Foxman, have given this invasion their blessing. Oy...
Apparently there is controversy over whether De Pretto in fact anticipated Einstein's equation: De Pretto come Albert Einstein? " No definitivo" .
If you were just repeating what you were told, you would not have interjected that nonsense about the Jooooos. Obviously, you have an axe to grind when something doesnot line up with your own point of view. If I told you that you need to study, that is my perception of your comment. Oh, my, must you whine about it? What I may or may not know about you is irrelevant. Perhaps you should work on your English compostition to get your point across more clearly to avoid these sorts of disagreements. And as for what I know about world history, I'll put my knowledge up against yours any time and any place. If you purport to know as much as you claim, you would not have made such a silly comment previously; you should, or would have known better. I've seen enough of you to know a pompous, arrogant blowhard when I see one. And your attempt to belittle me exposes you as being one. As I said, I'll stack up my knowledge against yours just any time. The only problem with that is your own cognitive dissonance will interfere with any possibility of it being a positive experience. And you will fail to learn, again.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
Stop whining.
Now you are sounding like the BOTS, accusing others of what you yourself are doing. Have a nice life.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
And as for what I know about world history, I'll put my knowledge up against yours any time and any place. I didn't say I knew more than you did, I said I knew more than you thought I did. (You even quoted me!) Apparently English comprehension isn't your strong point. I've seen enough of you to know a pompous, arrogant blowhard when I see one. This is truly an astonishing accusation to make, coming from one who wrote: (in post #74) Full knowledge and truth? Of history? (And, therefore, all history, otherwise it wouldn't be full knowledge?) And you have the gall to call me a pompous and arrogant blowhard. Let's see, what was your admonition to me again? Oh, yes, it was this: "accusing others of what you yourself are doing" Hypocrite.
Aaron on http://www.postliberty.com said you raped your mom.
Bye, bye, BOZO!
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Sen. Barry Goldwater
My mother died when I was 18 months old. His post says more about him than about me. Your passing this nugget of filth also says more about you than about me.
waaaah! crybaby! wanker!
The word on the net is that Aaron sleeps with the fishes. ROTFLOL!
#2. To: christine (#1)
#3. To: christine, Horse, Neil McIver (#1)
#4. To: christine (#1)
#5. To: Horse (#0)
#6. To: freeedom (#4)
I do get tired of the simmering anti-semitism here, however, which is why I made the jab.
#7. To: Zipporah, christine, Horse (#3)
#8. To: christine (#6)
Is any criticism of zionists, jews, or Israel anti-semitism in your mind?
#9. To: christine (#6)
#10. To: christine, freeedom (#6)
I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic.
#11. To: Neil McIver (#7)
#12. To: Zipporah, Neil McIver (#11)
#13. To: freeedom, christine (#8)
Incidentally, when you capitalize "the" in the statement "I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic" it conveys the impression that of all the problems in the world, THE problem is Jooooos, and we can only solve it if we can discuss it. Is that really what you intend to convey, or am I hopefully misunderstanding you?
#14. To: Zipporah (#11)
Okay Neil as it is now .. I took me an HOUR to get it like it is now..so screw it LOL!
#15. To: freeedom, Phaedrus (#8)
#16. To: Neil McIver (#13)
#17. To: christine (#15)
Based on your comments, I'm left to conclude that neither one of you believe in free speech. With free speech comes the good, the bad, and the ugly.
#18. To: christine (#15)
So basically if you owned this forum, you'd censor the posts of those you deem are racist or anti-semite or posts that, in your opinion, are not the truth ...
#19. To: freeedom (#8)
Saying that something "is the fault of the Jews" is like saying something is the fault of "the blacks" or "whitey" and is explicitly racist
#20. To: Neil McIver (#13)
Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. At least that's what one jew told me, in spite of the idea that the original blood jews are decended from Abraham. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
#22. To: christine (#6)
#23. To: Zipporah (#21)
I use High Beam library for research. When I typed in Iraqi war to benefit Israel I got 12,058 hits. The connection is denied by only those who wish to ignore the obvious.
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#23)
#25. To: Neil McIver (#13)
When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew.
Abe
#26. To: freeedom, christine (#8)
#27. To: Zipporah, all (#24)
#28. To: Jethro Tull (#27)
Shall we google the phrase the NEW MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?
#29. To: Neil McIver (#13)
#30. To: christine (#15)
#31. To: Zipporah, Jethro Tull, christine, Neil McIver, Horse, freedom, phaedrus (#28)
Shall we google the phrase the NEW MIDDLE EAST? WTF does that mean, except a foreign policy of nation building. I think it's important to be a truth seeker, and part of that quest is to ask the basic question, Who benefits?
That Einstein was a plagiarist and that the Jewish people control the press in America. (from the poster's comment)
legitimately questioning the Israeli government (and its agents, or even its citizens) for what they have done
#32. To: freeedom (#29)
I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead.
#33. To: Starwind (#31)
#34. To: Starwind (#31)
The same applies to Jews. Castigate (or accuse) specific individuals
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?
#36. To: Jethro Tull (#34)
That's a nice thought, but that isn't the real world Starwind. We tend to generalize. Blame it on the human condition. I see nothing nefarious here.
As a Catholic, why is it I don't become hypersensitive when my religion is discussed? No one I know does.
Plug in Jew for Catholic, and some take offense. That's their problem.
#37. To: christine, freeedom, Phaedrus (#15)
So basically if you owned this forum, you'd censor the posts of those you deem are racist or anti-semite or posts that, in your opinion, are not the truth
#38. To: freeedom (#35)
"The Jooooos "
#39. To: Zipporah (#20)
Well.. it is both Neil. Judaism is a religion true.. but THEY see themselves as a race.. Jewish atheists see themselves as Jews.. so if it were religion then how would that apply??
#40. To: Zipporah (#38)
#41. To: Neil McIver, Christine (#37)
I don't like such paranoia and the best way to dispel it is to permit candid discussion.
#42. To: freeedom (#29)
You're right, but I made a logical step from there. This is a political discussion forum, and if Jews are THE topic, and we're not happy about the way things are, I think we can presume that they are THE problem. Am I wrong?
You're being excessively pedantic. I doubt that when Horse posts, "The Jews are in control of the press" he means, practicing religious Jews.
Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike.
I confess to using the term colloquially. But tell me, when Horse posts "The Jews control the press" - does his use of the term "Jew" have any more subtlety or complexity than my informal use of the term "anti-Semitic" does? I don't think so.
Sort of. But once again, I don't think those who own the media outlets are practicing, devout Jews, so I believe you and Horse disagree, even though you are apparently coming to his defense.
There are a lot of things that are objectively in the Bible, e.g. stoning adulterers, that are (fortunately) long gone (except in radical Islam). I highly doubt that Jews don't pay margin interest or mortgage interest, even though some brokers and loan officers are undoutedly Jewish. (Or, ~all of them if you actually believed that Jews "control" banks and brokerage houses.)
I have no evidence that Jews, today, actually do this. Do you? The fact it's in their holy book doesn't mean it's still practiced.
One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers. If you want to talk about political correctness.
#43. To: Starwind (#31)
Can you not see the difference between
legitimately questioning the Israeli government (and its agents, or even its citizens) for what they have done
vs
Accusing Einstein of plagerism because he's Jewish and the press for hiding it because they're controlled by Jews (ie accusations based on who they are, rather than the actions they actually committed)?
#44. To: Starwind (#31)
But it's quite another (and wrong) to imply that Muslims or Islamists as an ethnic group are terrorists.
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#45. To: Neil McIver (#42)
#46. To: freeedom, Neil McIver (#29)
One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers.
#47. To: Starwind (#31)
We should be questioning/discussing what specific people or organizations have done, not for what racial or religious heiritage we impute to them.
#48. To: freeedom, Jethro Tull (#35)
To: Jethro Tull
#49. To: Phaedrus (#41)
I presume you would not permit someone advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it your decision (or Christine's, for that matter).
So you DO have lines that are not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or something more worthy?
#50. To: Horse, christine, Zipporah (#0)
#51. To: Diana (#47)
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#52. To: Phaedrus, christine, Neil McIver, ALL (#41)
This is pretty weak, Neil. I presume you would not permit someone
advocating the killing of blacks, or Jews, or whomever, on this forum were it
your decision (or Christine's, for that matter). So you DO have lines that are
not to be crossed. We're talking about the best place to draw the line, which is
always somewhat subjective. And someone has to do it. They will not necessarily
be popular but they can be respected. Is this forum about popularity or
something more worthy?
#53. To: Neil McIver (#50)
Is it okay if I just delete the bulk of the article? The book excerpts could be reposted, but it's messing up the thread and the bulk of the article is not readable in it's present form anyway. May I?
#54. To: freeedom, Starwind (#35)
Have you read this? Please do if you haven’t. Its been ripped
as anti-Semitic by all the usual suspects. I agree with every word. Neither
the scholarship nor the authors can be impeached, so the attack has come from
the pro censorship mob. The actual paper from which this critique was taken is
some 50 odd pages. Read that also, if you have the time. I believe every word
of this paper. Do you? If not, why not?
#55. To: Tauzero (#51)
#56. To: Jethro Tull (#54)
Neither the scholarship
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#57. To: freeedom (#45)
For the sake of argument: Jews don't charge each other interest. So what? Family members sometimes don't charge each other interest either, maybe that means Jews just think of each other as family members. Does this somehow justify the discrimination and persecution that has resulted?
Would this fact have any bearing on whether "the Jews control the press" or whatnot? No and no.
Careful there!! You're one millimeter away from justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing War On Terror.
#58. To: Diana (#46)
The majority of muslims just want to live their lives and live right, and yes, peacefully. There are indeed the fanatics who want to kill infidels, but those types are found in all major religions.
#59. To: Diana (#55)
Comparing people with apples is like comparing oranges with apples (something like that).
I use antlers in all of my decorating.
#60. To: Tauzero (#56)
There are some bits that are questionable
#61. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#60)
The Delphi method and consensus building
Role of the facilitator
#62. To: Zipporah (#52)
... *I* DO NOT appreciate YOU making it sound as if discussion and/or criticism can be equated to as YOU put it "advocating the killing of blacks, or Jew, or whomever ...
#63. To: Phaedrus (#62)
#64. To: Neil McIver (#58)
then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today
#65. To: freeedom (#64)
Relative state of peace, indeed!
#66. To: Horse, All (#0)
Albert Einstein A Plagiarist?
#67. To: Neil McIver, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, robin, Zoroaster, BTP Holdings, Arator, Brian S, A K A Stone, Steppenwolf, Bub, mugwort, bluegrass, Bill D Berger, FormerLurker, Uncle Bill, Dakmar, Flintlock, Neil McIver, tom007, aristeides, Burkeman1, Diana, (#58)
then we would not be at nearly the relative state of peace we are in today
#68. To: freeedom (#35)
One thing I'll stand by: there are a lot of foolish, dangerous, or outright insane people in positions of political power everywhere across the globe, and one shouldn't look to the duly enacted laws of any country as paragons of reason, rationality, beneficence, or virtue.
#69. To: Horse, freedom (#0)
The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.
#70. To: Jethro Tull (#54)
#71. To: Starwind (#70)
TOOK A JAY BIRD FORTY YEARS TO FLY FROM HORN TO HORN
#72. To: Starwind (#70)
#73. To: Jethro Tull (#72)
It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s.
Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of "prior possession?"
#74. To: freeedom (#35)
It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, but it could be something else. (It could also be because The Jooooos control everything, but I reject that argument.)
#75. To: Starwind (#73)
Israel squeezed in except for the Gaza and West Bank
#76. To: Jethro Tull (#75)
This, to me, seems a simple case of land theft.
I can understand why the Palestinians didn't want to leave; this was their home prior to the first official action of the new global entity.
#77. To: Starwind (#76)
#78. To: Phaedrus (#18)
Anyone shown, repeat shown, to post lies, innuendo, character assassination etc. on more than one, repeat one, occasion would be thrown out.
#79. To: Anonymous Dead Indian (#78)
But by this standard shouldn't you be the first person tossed out on their ear? Is this what you want?
#80. To: Jethro Tull (#77)
And who appointed Faisal to such a position? Wasn't he a creation of the British empire?
#81. To: BAC (#79)
There are actually two standards. One for himself and one for everyone else on the planet. He's stating the second standard in his post. It doesn't apply to him. It only applies to everyone else.
#82. To: Starwind (#80)
#83. To: Phaedrus (#18)
#84. To: Starwind, Jethro Tull (#76)
People were trying to fair. It was not a simple situation.
#85. To: Starwind, Jethro Tull (#80)
But Faisal did have his Hashemite pedigree behorehand as well as king of Syria and Iraq at one time.
#86. To: BAC (#83)
We have many advantages over normal people. Our definition of "truth" can mean many different things at once. We are unconstrained!
#87. To: Jethro Tull (#82)
SO Faisal was the King played by Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia
#88. To: BTP Holdings (#85)
which we see in the form of the CIA-sponsored coups d'etat
which overthrew lawfully elected governments in both Iraq and Iran
#89. To: Starwind (#87)
#90. To: BTP Holdings (#74)
#91. To: Neil McIver (#42)
#92. To: freeedom, christine (#91)
Still anxiously awaiting enlightenment about the meaning intended to be conveyed by: "Jews being THE issue," and about what particular interpretation of "Jew" makes the statement: "The Jews control the press" a reasonable position to take in a debate. Points you inexplicably neglected to make in your follow-up posts to me.
because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic.
#93. To: Anonymous Dead Indian (#78)
But by this standard shouldn't you be the first person tossed out on their ear?
#94. To: BAC (#83)
Don't let the kooks push you around.
#95. To: All (#94)
#96. To: Rainingfish (#95)
#97. To: Jethro Tull (#96)
#98. To: freeedom (#95)
#99. To: christine (#98)
#100. To: freeedom (#99)
Makes me think that you somehow see Jews behind everything worth discussing on this board. Please tell me that I misunderstand.
#101. To: Jethro Tull (#100)
#102. To: freeedom (#101)
#103. To: freeedom (#99)
Makes me think that you somehow see Jews behind everything
worth discussing on this board. Please tell me that I misunderstand.
#104. To: christine (#103)
http://www.angryamerica.com/
#105. To: christine (#103)
#106. To: freeedom (#105)
To my knowledge, Isreal does not call for the destruction of any or all Arab states, while at the least Palestine and Iran have called for the deaths of Isrealis, and the destruction of Isreal.
#107. To: Jethro Tull (#106)
#108. To: freeedom (#107)
#109. To: Jethro Tull (#108)
#110. To: freeedom (#109)
#111. To: Jethro Tull (#110)
Suffice to say, they, and their lemming supporters, are a curse to America and the Middle East.
#112. To: freeedom (#111)
#113. To: Horse (#0)
#114. To: freeedom (#90)
First, why should I do anything at all about it? It's coming from them, not from me, I'm just the messenger. If anyone needs to study anything, it's the Europeans who told me about it, and not me.
Second, you are awfully quick to tell me about what you think are the limitations of my knowledge, based on your own assumptions about me. I submit you don't know as much about me as you think. In all likelihood, you don't know as much about world history as you think either.
Yes, you are the indisputible world expert on this matter, and many others no doubt. In your own mind, at least. Everyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant - according to you. No other explanation for disagreement fits into your worldview. "Full knowledge" indeed!
#115. To: BTP Holdings (#114)
#116. To: freeedom (#115)
Stop whining.
#117. To: BTP Holdings (#114)
I say this with full knowledge of the truth of the matter.
#118. To: freeedom (#117)
#119. To: freeedom (#117)
#120. To: Dakmar (#118)
#121. To: freeedom (#120)
#122. To: Dakmar (#121)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest