Holocaust a Hoax & Jews Drink the Blood of Children

[wbcoleman]

BY: Adam Kredo
August 16, 2012 4:04 pm

http://freebeacon.com/saudi-cleric-questions-holocaust/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MEquLcPomM&feature=player_embedded

[clistensprechen]

2 Kings 6.

Lamentations 4.

These passages exist, as does the Wailing Wall and an annual celebration associated therewith.  Just sayin'.

[wbcoleman]

2 Kings 6.

Lamentations 4.

These passages exist, as does the Wailing Wall and an annual celebration associated therewith.  Just sayin'.

I'm missing your point.  Could you be more specific?

[clistensprechen]

Jewish children-eating is not just on the record but on the holy scripture record. You'll run into huge difficulties attempting to erase scripture.

[wbcoleman]

Jewish children-eating is not just on the record but on the holy scripture record. You'll run into huge difficulties attempting to erase scripture.

Oh, I thought that you were agreeing with al-Odeh that the Jews deserved all the abuse.

And what, exactly, in your mind, is the connection between your Biblical citations and the longstanding blood libel that Jews murder children in order to use their blood in the production of matzah?

[clistensprechen]

Nobody deserves abuse and that's the point of any Arab which points to the scriptures I cited in regard to Jews eating children...which is often misconstrued as a charge of "blood libel", as is much of anti-Israel sentiment being construed as "anti-semitism" when it isn't.

Tall tales get told about all kinds of people in power, which is where the word "libel" originates (France, in regard to vicarious novelettes about alleged scandals among nobility and royalty). What makes these stories stick, though? Some do, some don't. I'm saying a record, especially one regarded as sacred record--could very well be one significant element of the glue.

Tribal animosities are, well, tribal--as in archaic. None of us will be part of a civilized species until we leave the tribe behind to the dust of history and move forward.

[Woody]

Nobody deserves abuse and that's the point of any Arab which points to the scriptures I cited in regard to Jews eating children...which is often misconstrued as a charge of "blood libel", as is much of anti-Israel sentiment being construed as "anti-semitism" when it isn't.

Tall tales get told about all kinds of people in power, which is where the word "libel" originates (France, in regard to vicarious novelettes about alleged scandals among nobility and royalty). What makes these stories stick, though? Some do, some don't. I'm saying a record, especially one regarded as sacred record--could very well be one significant element of the glue.

Tribal animosities are, well, tribal--as in archaic. None of us will be part of a civilized species until we leave the tribe behind to the dust of history and move forward.

That's a wonderful history lesson.


Now, what do you think of yet another holocaust denier?  Or the fact that is stories are generally implausible? 

[clistensprechen]

I'm saying that people "play telephone" with history all the time, and this sounds like one of those cases. It's not like child-eating in Jewish circles was ever a fabrication out of thin air. I quoted scriptures that lead to such stories. Outlandish stories are even expected during political campaigns, as we can already see.

Anybody who says that the Holocaust was all about only Jews is exaggerating, as historical facts say that the Holocaust was about ANY group of people who weren't what Hitler deemed to be some sort of "master race" and that even included Germans who weren't blonde enough.

Now, both you and wbcoleman are already familiar with the usual refrain I've posted on Linc's place in this regard--when are y'all going to cry about the Roma who died in the Holocaust?  The rabid among the Jewish who pimp the Holocaust as exclusive to their particular issue show pictures of piles of bodies such as was shown via the movie about the Nuremberg Trials for the purpose of invoking shock as to how many Jews were persecuted never tell us which of those bodies were Romas and other non-Jews who perished in that terror, and we're expected to presume that all of them were Jews when it's not so.

Therefore it's accurate to conclude that some Jews who milk the Holocaust are in fact exaggerating.

Another thing that goes missing in discussions about the Holocaust is a frank, honest consideration of the nature of Zionism. wbcoleman already knows I disagree with his characterization of Zionism in his signature because I also know it's a recently developed excuse for it and has not been a part of the history of Zionism, which officially begins with Theodor Herzl and his organization, mentioned in the current Constitution of Israel. While Zionism and the term Zionist has become a meaningless epithet in today's times, it nonetheless has a concrete historical substance that dates back not to Hitler but to the Hapsburg Empire.

I know the whole story, and Jews who will not tell you the whole story are indeed exaggerating.  It's not the case that all Jews do this, but the people who are rabid rightwing pro-illegal-settlement type of Jew will indeed exaggerate.

[Woody]

I'm saying that people "play telephone" with history all the time, and this sounds like one of those cases. It's not like child-eating in Jewish circles was ever a fabrication out of thin air. I quoted scriptures that lead to such stories. Outlandish stories are even expected during political campaigns, as we can already see.


Anybody who says that the Holocaust was all about only Jews is exaggerating, as historical facts say that the Holocaust was about ANY group of people who weren't what Hitler deemed to be some sort of "master race" and that even included Germans who weren't blonde enough.

Now, both you and wbcoleman are already familiar with the usual refrain I've posted on Linc's place in this regard--when are y'all going to cry about the Roma who died in the Holocaust?  The rabid among the Jewish who pimp the Holocaust as exclusive to their particular issue show pictures of piles of bodies such as was shown via the movie about the Nuremberg Trials for the purpose of invoking shock as to how many Jews were persecuted never tell us which of those bodies were Romas and other non-Jews who perished in that terror, and we're expected to presume that all of them were Jews when it's not so.

Therefore it's accurate to conclude that some Jews who milk the Holocaust are in fact exaggerating.

Another thing that goes missing in discussions about the Holocaust is a frank, honest consideration of the nature of Zionism. wbcoleman already knows I disagree with his characterization of Zionism in his signature because I also know it's a recently developed excuse for it and has not been a part of the history of Zionism, which officially begins with Theodor Herzl and his organization, mentioned in the current Constitution of Israel. While Zionism and the term Zionist has become a meaningless epithet in today's times, it nonetheless has a concrete historical substance that dates back not to Hitler but to the Hapsburg Empire.

I know the whole story, and Jews who will not tell you the whole story are indeed exaggerating.  It's not the case that all Jews do this, but the people who are rabid rightwing pro-illegal-settlement type of Jew will indeed exaggerate.

Actually, no I am not familiar with your "refrain" posted at lincs place.  I don't converse with whackos who deny the holocaust.  Not saying you did but I notice a not so subtle avoidance of discussing it on your part.


I notice an attempt to refrain the topic.  Now, Clara, do you deny the holocaust happened?  Yes or no will suffice.  Do you acknowledge that millions of Jews, along with other ethnicities, we're exterminated in the holocaust?  Yes or no.


We can then move to your diversions.  You sound like a whacko but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[clistensprechen]

I'm not avoiding the topic...if I was, I'd avoid this thread instead of post in it, silly.  What I do know is that both you and wbcoleman *should be* familiar already with my position on that, given the long history we've had elsewhere on this topic.  I think that, once the noise of Linc's place is absent, wbcoleman in particular is much clearer on the position I take on these matters.

You prefer ignorance by your own admission by jumping to a wrong conclusion.

1) No.

2) Yes.

[Woody]

I'm not avoiding the topic...if I was, I'd avoid this thread instead of post in it, silly.  What I do know is that both you and wbcoleman *should be* familiar already with my position on that, given the long history we've had elsewhere on this topic.  I think that, once the noise of Linc's place is absent, wbcoleman in particular is much clearer on the position I take on these matters.

You prefer ignorance by your own admission by jumping to a wrong conclusion.

No Clara, I shouldn't be.  I did not enter those threads because of the loons.

Now, Clara, do you deny the holocaust happened?  Yes or no will suffice.  Do you acknowledge that millions of Jews, along with other ethnicities, we're exterminated in the holocaust?  Yes or no

I have not jumped to a single conclusion.  If I did I would not have asked you those questions. I even posted that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Can you read or is English your second or third language.

[clistensprechen]

I find your explanation of not entering threads because of the loons to be a reasonable explanation.

I find your repetition of your questions unreasonable because it's clear you didn't even bother to read my answers HERE, in THIS THREAD, on THIS website.

[Woody]

I'm not avoiding the topic...if I was, I'd avoid this thread instead of post in it, silly.  What I do know is that both you and wbcoleman *should be* familiar already with my position on that, given the long history we've had elsewhere on this topic.  I think that, once the noise of Linc's place is absent, wbcoleman in particular is much clearer on the position I take on these matters.

You prefer ignorance by your own admission by jumping to a wrong conclusion.

1) No.

2) Yes.

I understand you are an all powerful moderator who can change posts at will.  But it would be considerate if you corrected your own posts as a regular poster so the edit message appears.


Now that I see your answer I thank you.  And you can apologize for ACCUSING me of jumping to conclusions.

[wbcoleman]

Nobody deserves abuse and that's the point of any Arab which points to the scriptures I cited in regard to Jews eating children...which is often misconstrued as a charge of "blood libel", as is much of anti-Israel sentiment being construed as "anti-semitism" when it isn't.

I am missing something here.  WHAT is the POINT of an Arab [or anyone else] who cites the Hebrew Bible while accusing Jews of murdering children in order to use their blood to make matzah?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. al-Odeh was talking about JEWS.  Is that right?

Tall tales get told about all kinds of people in power, which is where the word "libel" originates (France, in regard to vicarious novelettes about alleged scandals among nobility and royalty). What makes these stories stick, though? Some do, some don't. I'm saying a record, especially one regarded as sacred record--could very well be one significant element of the glue.

This particular "tale" is of Christian origin, not Muslim, as is the "tale" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The Arabs took their cues from both about a century ago.  Am I understanding correctly that you think this is OK?

Tribal animosities are, well, tribal--as in archaic. None of us will be part of a civilized species until we leave the tribe behind to the dust of history and move forward.

That is a beautiful sentiment.  How, exactly, is it supposed to be applied to the activities of Messrs. al-Odeh and Ahmadnijihad?

[wbcoleman]

I'm saying that people "play telephone" with history all the time, and this sounds like one of those cases. It's not like child-eating in Jewish circles was ever a fabrication out of thin air. I quoted scriptures that lead to such stories. Outlandish stories are even expected during political campaigns, as we can already see.

Anybody who says that the Holocaust was all about only Jews is exaggerating, as historical facts say that the Holocaust was about ANY group of people who weren't what Hitler deemed to be some sort of "master race" and that even included Germans who weren't blonde enough.

Now, both you and wbcoleman are already familiar with the usual refrain I've posted on Linc's place in this regard--when are y'all going to cry about the Roma who died in the Holocaust?  The rabid among the Jewish who pimp the Holocaust as exclusive to their particular issue show pictures of piles of bodies such as was shown via the movie about the Nuremberg Trials for the purpose of invoking shock as to how many Jews were persecuted never tell us which of those bodies were Romas and other non-Jews who perished in that terror, and we're expected to presume that all of them were Jews when it's not so.

Therefore it's accurate to conclude that some Jews who milk the Holocaust are in fact exaggerating.

Another thing that goes missing in discussions about the Holocaust is a frank, honest consideration of the nature of Zionism. wbcoleman already knows I disagree with his characterization of Zionism in his signature because I also know it's a recently developed excuse for it and has not been a part of the history of Zionism, which officially begins with Theodor Herzl and his organization, mentioned in the current Constitution of Israel. While Zionism and the term Zionist has become a meaningless epithet in today's times, it nonetheless has a concrete historical substance that dates back not to Hitler but to the Hapsburg Empire.

I know the whole story, and Jews who will not tell you the whole story are indeed exaggerating.  It's not the case that all Jews do this, but the people who are rabid rightwing pro-illegal-settlement type of Jew will indeed exaggerate.

I'll come back to this later, after shabbat, but my signature is completely consistent with Herzl and with the Israeli Declaration of Independence.  It has no religious content whatsoever.