Holocaust a Hoax & Jews Drink the Blood of Children

[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.

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?

One thing you know I'll never do: attempt to find reason in religious insanities, and that includes the religious insanity of claiming a real estate deed from God.  Unless and until God shows his copy to a human court of law that matches word for word, with signatures, to a contract in the possession of some assigned Jewish keeper of the document, I say the claim should always be viewed as invalid.  The ancestral argument won't work with me either until Israel is returned to the Canaanites and America (North and South) gets handed back over to the Indians.  IMHO, ALL Abrahamic religions are insane, and here's a good time to remind you that I'm an atheist.

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?

I do not think it is OK. I don't believe any more nor any less that any tales of that nature are tales to be sure, but there's that itty bitty matter of there being a reason to believe that it's a matter of "playing telephone" with something that is on actual scriptural record. Again--no more and no less. You are not in a position to deny the contents of scripture. The contents of the Protocols, definitely; scripture, no.

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?

It can't be applied exclusively to those two people--it has to be applied to every Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic tribalist on the planet, equally.

[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?

One thing you know I'll never do: attempt to find reason in religious insanities, and that includes the religious insanity of claiming a real estate deed from God.  Unless and until God shows his copy to a human court of law that matches word for word, with signatures, to a contract in the possession of some assigned Jewish keeper of the document, I say the claim should always be viewed as invalid.  The ancestral argument won't work with me either until Israel is returned to the Canaanites and America (North and South) gets handed back over to the Indians.  IMHO, ALL Abrahamic religions are insane, and here's a good time to remind you that I'm an atheist.

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?

I do not think it is OK. I don't believe any more nor any less that any tales of that nature are tales to be sure, but there's that itty bitty matter of there being a reason to believe that it's a matter of "playing telephone" with something that is on actual scriptural record. Again--no more and no less. You are not in a position to deny the contents of scripture. The contents of the Protocols, definitely; scripture, no.

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?

It can't be applied exclusively to those two people--it has to be applied to every Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic tribalist on the planet, equally.

OK, I cannot figure out why you brought up the texts you did in response to Mr. al-Odeh's video, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't defending his use of the infamous blood libel.

If you read the Israeli Declaration of Independence, you'll find a detailed justification for the establishment of the Jewish State within the Land of Israel; however, what you will not find is any reference to any biblical text.  In fact, you won't even find a reference to G-d, save a veiled one at the very end.  Many of the authors and signers of the document were every bit as atheist as you.

[clistensprechen]

I brought up two texts of the Old Testament to show that there was not just record but scriptural recording of Jews eating their own children. These are texts that are held to be true by believers in these scriptures.

The Protocols are false and have been proven to be false.

When I talked about Israel, I talked about the Constitution's mention of Theodor Herzl.

Are we clear now?

[wbcoleman]

I brought up two texts of the Old Testament to show that there was not just record but scriptural recording of Jews eating their own children. These are texts that are held to be true by believers in these scriptures.

The Protocols are false and have been proven to be false.

When I talked about Israel, I talked about the Constitution's mention of Theodor Herzl.

Are we clear now?

I am going to ignore your troubling use of the biblical texts, which you don't even believe in any case.  As for Israel's Constitution, no such document exists.

[clistensprechen]

I brought up two texts of the Old Testament to show that there was not just record but scriptural recording of Jews eating their own children. These are texts that are held to be true by believers in these scriptures.

The Protocols are false and have been proven to be false.

When I talked about Israel, I talked about the Constitution's mention of Theodor Herzl.

Are we clear now?

I am going to ignore your troubling use of the biblical texts, which you don't even believe in any case.  As for Israel's Constitution, no such document exists.

Theodor Herzl is a person, not a text. FAIL

[wbcoleman]

I brought up two texts of the Old Testament to show that there was not just record but scriptural recording of Jews eating their own children. These are texts that are held to be true by believers in these scriptures.

The Protocols are false and have been proven to be false.

When I talked about Israel, I talked about the Constitution's mention of Theodor Herzl.

Are we clear now?

I am going to ignore your troubling use of the biblical texts, which you don't even believe in any case.  As for Israel's Constitution, no such document exists.

Theodor Herzl is a person, not a text. FAIL

You can't concede a simple mistake, you have to respond with nonsense?  Sad.

[clistensprechen]

Scripture is a mistake, now, is it? You don't believe that Jews believe in their own scripture, huh.

You're the one making the mistake of proclaiming Theodor Herzl to be a text. He was an Austrian (as in European) newspaper man.

You've made 2 mistakes with that, and the third is claiming that I made a mistake.  I own up to mistakes I actually make, not "mistakes" you fabricate.

[wbcoleman]

Scripture is a mistake, now, is it? You don't believe that Jews believe in their own scripture, huh.

You're the one making the mistake of proclaiming Theodor Herzl to be a text. He was an Austrian (as in European) newspaper man.

You've made 2 mistakes with that, and the third is claiming that I made a mistake.  I own up to mistakes I actually make, not "mistakes" you fabricate.

Wow.  You sound like a misprogrammed robot.

[clistensprechen]

Otherwise said, I don't fit your particular programming.

I like it that way, thanks.

[wbcoleman]

Otherwise said, I don't fit your particular programming.

I like it that way, thanks.

That's fine, and if you think ANYBODY takes these non-sequitors as anything else, that's fine, too.

Meanwhile Arab anti-semitism is as virulent as ever, and ditto the Iraniac threats.

[clistensprechen]

But Arabs ARE semites. To be anti-semitic requires being anti-Arab.

[wbcoleman]

But Arabs ARE semites. To be anti-semitic requires being anti-Arab.

No, the word "anti-semite" means "hater of Jews".

[clistensprechen]

"Anti-semite" means "against semites"--and Arabs are semites.

Israel's Jews are Europeans. 

The prefix "anti" doesn't mean "hater". It means "against".  You really need to take remedial English.

[wbcoleman]

"Anti-semite" means "against semites"--and Arabs are semites.

Israel's Jews are Europeans. 

The prefix "anti" doesn't mean "hater". It means "against".  You really need to take remedial English.

The rhetoric you are spouting is a classic indication of anti-semitism.

[clistensprechen]

Sorry, but that's English.

CORRECT English.