Political Crossfire Forums

[praise-the-lord]

metalan1 wrote: The Rothschild cabal could not care less about Jews. To them they are a means to an end of global control.

The invasion and subversion of an entire nation was based on texts in the Bible written by who knows who thousands of years ago after the Jewish captivity in the ancient Illuminati centre of Babylon in what is now Iraq. Pinch me, it can't be true. 'Ouch', yes it is.


the best post i read here in a while
i only quoted parts because of its length

[to_frankie]

cap'n queasy wrote: Additionally, the genetic make-up of European Jews clearly shows that they are Jews. They have the same genetic maladies, such as Say-Tachs disease etc.
http://www.genetichealthvic.net.au/pages/news&views/news11.html

It is clearly racist to claim otherwise. It is a theory developed by racists to promote a racist agenda. There is no other purpose for it than to attempt to cut-off any legitimate criticism of this type of view.

If you want to seriously discuss history, which I can see you have some grasp of, that is one thing but if you use such pseudo-scientific and mythic arguments that focus un-naturally on racial traits you are going to lose credibility.

Funny you just used psuedo-scientific claims to back up your bs argument. :roll: do not let facts get in the way fo your argument.

No one is arguing that Ashkenazi jews areant jews, just that they are converts ot judaism and are originally Khazars

http://www.khazaria.com/


The Khazars (Heb. sing. "Kuzari" כוזרי plur. "Kuzarim" כוזרים; Arab. خزر; Turk. sing. "Hazar" plur. Hazarlar; Greek Χαζάροι; Russ. Хазары; Tat. sing Xäzär plur. Xäzärlär; Crimean Tatar: sing. Hazar, plur. Hazarlar Persian خزر; Latin "Gazari" or "Cosri") were a semi-nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia, many of whom converted to Judaism. The name 'Khazar' seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering" ('gezer' in modern Turkish). In the 7th century CE they founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea, where over time Judaism became the state religion. At their height, they and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, large portions of the Caucasus (including Dagestan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), and the Crimea.

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


start spinning the propaganda. :roll: :roll:

[praise-the-lord]

Quote: The lands of the Semitic peoples. Why aren't we told that being 'anti-Semitic' overwhelmingly means 'anti-Arab'??
great point

[praise-the-lord]

another great topic that neo cons seem to want to ignore... all proof once again, instead they're bashing someone in alternative views section for not providing proof in the new topics, then when they do, comes sarcasm/topic changing/trolling etc....

[The Comrade]

henrilegrand wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

Who said anything about supporting the government?

Do you actually think that Israel/Illuminati is a actual group that pulls the strings behind everything? I would have to say that is using extremely simplistic thinking to lay the blame for the world's problems at the feet of a perpetual scapegoat, Jewish folks. That is clearly anti-semitism.

That's all I'm taking issue with.

I find a lot of thsi article quite far fetched but, its a know fact that most Askhenazi jews are originally from Khazaria so that doesnt make them semites does capnquesy? ANd thus, the term anti-semtism is null and void.

*****

All opinions negative of Israel today is called "Antisemitism"

Consider what Jesus said regarding the Jews in
John 8:44 - "You are children of the devil...you are murderers...you are liars and the father of lies"

Jesus was right, he knew what he was talking about, he was a Jew himself.

And BTW, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism did not promote the barbecueing of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

the first bible was written decades after jesus died and the first "editor" of the bible was constantine(and we all know how he had a hard time being christian). constantine changed th bible the way he wanted to. and considering the romans previous diaspora does it surprise you that the bible contains anti-jewish slander? not to mention many hard line christians back in the day blamed the jews for the death of jesus.

considering everything the jews have been blamed for they must have caused the fall of rome, the dark ages, the plague, economic troubles for countless countries, world war one, world war two, the media, global domination annddddd everyones favorite term lately "ZIONISM"

[cap'n queasy]

DavidXV wrote: psholtz wrote: DavidXV wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

Who said anything about supporting the government?

Do you actually think that Israel/Illuminati is a actual group that pulls the strings behind everything? I would have to say that is using extremely simplistic thinking to lay the blame for the world's problems at the feet of a perpetual scapegoat, Jewish folks. That is clearly anti-semitism.

That's all I'm taking issue with.

I find a lot of thsi article quite far fetched but, its a know fact that most Askhenazi jews are originally from Khazaria so that doesnt make them semites does capnquesy? ANd thus, the term anti-semtism is null and void. Great propaganda diatribe, but anti-semite is the term that has always throughout history been used to describe those who hate Jews. it's not new, and no the propagandists do not get to change it's meaning.
If by "throughout history" you mean for the least 130 years or so, then .. OK.

Otherwise, it's you my friend who is spinning the propaganda. I meant, hatred of Jews existed before the term and since it's inception was the term described hatred of Jews and has never meant anything else. The recent attempts to redefine the meaning are the work of propagandists. You can't find in history it ever being used for anything else, throughout it's history, it has only one meaning.

It's just another attempt at historical distortion for ideological reasons. No one would be attracted to such racial theories and distortions if they did not have an anti-semitic, racist world-view that they would like to justify to others.

It's obvious to anyone who does not have this type of attitude.

[DavidXV]

cap'n queasy wrote: DavidXV wrote: psholtz wrote: DavidXV wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

Who said anything about supporting the government?

Do you actually think that Israel/Illuminati is a actual group that pulls the strings behind everything? I would have to say that is using extremely simplistic thinking to lay the blame for the world's problems at the feet of a perpetual scapegoat, Jewish folks. That is clearly anti-semitism.

That's all I'm taking issue with.

I find a lot of thsi article quite far fetched but, its a know fact that most Askhenazi jews are originally from Khazaria so that doesnt make them semites does capnquesy? ANd thus, the term anti-semtism is null and void. Great propaganda diatribe, but anti-semite is the term that has always throughout history been used to describe those who hate Jews. it's not new, and no the propagandists do not get to change it's meaning.
If by "throughout history" you mean for the least 130 years or so, then .. OK.

Otherwise, it's you my friend who is spinning the propaganda. I meant, hatred of Jews existed before the term and since it's inception was the term described hatred of Jews and has never meant anything else. The recent attempts to redefine the meaning are the work of propagandists. You can't find in history it ever being used for anything else, throughout it's history, it has only one meaning.

It's just another attempt at historical distortion for ideological reasons. No one would be attracted to such racial theories and distortions if they did not have an anti-semitic, racist world-view that they would like to justify to others.

It's obvious to anyone who does not have this type of attitude. I agree. It seems kinda funny that anti-semites don't like being called anti-semite.

[cap'n queasy]

The Comrade wrote: henrilegrand wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

Who said anything about supporting the government?

Do you actually think that Israel/Illuminati is a actual group that pulls the strings behind everything? I would have to say that is using extremely simplistic thinking to lay the blame for the world's problems at the feet of a perpetual scapegoat, Jewish folks. That is clearly anti-semitism.

That's all I'm taking issue with.

I find a lot of thsi article quite far fetched but, its a know fact that most Askhenazi jews are originally from Khazaria so that doesnt make them semites does capnquesy? ANd thus, the term anti-semtism is null and void.

*****

All opinions negative of Israel today is called "Antisemitism"

Consider what Jesus said regarding the Jews in
John 8:44 - "You are children of the devil...you are murderers...you are liars and the father of lies"

Jesus was right, he knew what he was talking about, he was a Jew himself.

And BTW, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism did not promote the barbecueing of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

the first bible was written decades after jesus died and the first "editor" of the bible was constantine(and we all know how he had a hard time being christian). constantine changed th bible the way he wanted to. and considering the romans previous diaspora does it surprise you that the bible contains anti-jewish slander? not to mention many hard line christians back in the day blamed the jews for the death of jesus.

considering everything the jews have been blamed for they must have caused the fall of rome, the dark ages, the plague, economic troubles for countless countries, world war one, world war two, the media, global domination annddddd everyones favorite term lately "ZIONISM"

That's another common distortion. Constantine did not "edit" the Bible. It already existed. He simply made Christinity legal for the first time in Rome. And it doesn't contain anti-Jewish slander as anyone who actually read the passage and thought about it could see.

Why would most Christians support Israel and our Jewish brothers and sisters if the Bible were an anti-semitic writing? Practically all the main people in it are Hebrew. Y'shua is Jewish.

The fact is a racist took a Bible passage and misrepresented it to promote an ridiculous anti-semitic argument he wanted to support.

[George W Bush]

A historical "right to return" to land is not enough for me to support the taking of land of Arab people.

Not all of us adhere to this "Jews are Gods chosen people" mindset, or the mindset that semitic ancestors have a historic right to someones land and country.

If you want to get historically technical, the original "right to land" would have gone to Pagans because they were Caananites whom Jews massacred to take the land allegedly ordered by the god they created.

Being an Agnostic, I guess, makes me Antisemitic. But, whatever. I have the freedom to be in disagreement with some peoples ideals, making me more of a conciencious objector.

Regardless, the philosophy of "might is right" will not be cloaked in this "historical right to land". The mayhem created as a result of such philsophy is why we are in the Middle East to this day. Some Jewish people want the world to accept their Biblical right to land beyond the current system of fairness.

I have no shame in disagreeing even I am called "antisemitic".

[cap'n queasy]

DavidXV wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: DavidXV wrote: psholtz wrote: DavidXV wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

Who said anything about supporting the government?

Do you actually think that Israel/Illuminati is a actual group that pulls the strings behind everything? I would have to say that is using extremely simplistic thinking to lay the blame for the world's problems at the feet of a perpetual scapegoat, Jewish folks. That is clearly anti-semitism.

That's all I'm taking issue with.

I find a lot of thsi article quite far fetched but, its a know fact that most Askhenazi jews are originally from Khazaria so that doesnt make them semites does capnquesy? ANd thus, the term anti-semtism is null and void. Great propaganda diatribe, but anti-semite is the term that has always throughout history been used to describe those who hate Jews. it's not new, and no the propagandists do not get to change it's meaning.
If by "throughout history" you mean for the least 130 years or so, then .. OK.

Otherwise, it's you my friend who is spinning the propaganda. I meant, hatred of Jews existed before the term and since it's inception was the term described hatred of Jews and has never meant anything else. The recent attempts to redefine the meaning are the work of propagandists. You can't find in history it ever being used for anything else, throughout it's history, it has only one meaning.

It's just another attempt at historical distortion for ideological reasons. No one would be attracted to such racial theories and distortions if they did not have an anti-semitic, racist world-view that they would like to justify to others.

It's obvious to anyone who does not have this type of attitude. I agree. It seems kinda funny that anti-semites don't like being called anti-semite.

Especially when they say they only want the "truth" to come out and that they stand behind their beliefs. It seems to me they must be a little ashamed about it deep down in their heart if they don't want to openly admit to people what they really think.

If you are going to sit there and imply that Jews are vile, greedy criminals who control everything and cheat everyone with their zionist conspiracy and then sit there and say you don't have a problem with them I have to say I think you are a little wishy washy.

[cap'n queasy]

George W Bush wrote: A historical "right to return" to land is not enough for me to support the taking of land of Arab people.

Not all of us adhere to this "Jews are Gods chosen people" mindset, or the mindset that semitic ancestors have a historic right to someones land and country.

If you want to get historically technical, the original "right to land" would have gone to Pagans because they were Caananites whom Jews massacred to take the land allegedly ordered by the god they created.

Being an Agnostic, I guess, makes me Antisemitic. But, whatever. I have the freedom to be in disagreement with some peoples ideals, making me more of a conciencious objector.

Regardless, the philosophy of "might is right" will not be cloaked in this "historical right to land". The mayhem created as a result of such philsophy is why we are in the Middle East to this day. Some Jewish people want the world to accept their Biblical right to land beyond the current system of fairness.

I have no shame in disagreeing even I am called "antisemitic".

Do you think Spain should belong to the Arabs, as well? After all they conquered Spain about the same time they conquered the Holy Land.

A claim to Spain would have just as much validity as a claim on Israel using that logic.

Those darn Europeans, taking Muslim land.

[George W Bush]

Heres the thing with the Jewish Zionist Conspiracy:

I dont adhere to it, first of all. Secondly, Jews make up less than 2% of the world.

I simply dont believe that less than 2% of the world is capable of controlling the world.

Zionists have been able to, however, tug at the hearts of powerful rulers who have the will of their own people to contend to. Since Judaism is the oldest, most well established religion, its easier to convince religious country's to accept the Jewish story.

However, I believe that, regardless, Jews in general can not possibly have the power by which many insist. They are simply too little in number and probably have their own regimented faith to contend with beyond the accused controls of the media, government, etc.

Jews control the world? LOL. no way. Jews can hardly control the state of Israel (about the size of Maryland), let alone the world.

[cap'n queasy]

to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Additionally, the genetic make-up of European Jews clearly shows that they are Jews. They have the same genetic maladies, such as Say-Tachs disease etc.
http://www.genetichealthvic.net.au/pages/news&views/news11.html

It is clearly racist to claim otherwise. It is a theory developed by racists to promote a racist agenda. There is no other purpose for it than to attempt to cut-off any legitimate criticism of this type of view.

If you want to seriously discuss history, which I can see you have some grasp of, that is one thing but if you use such pseudo-scientific and mythic arguments that focus un-naturally on racial traits you are going to lose credibility.

Funny you just used psuedo-scientific claims to back up your bs argument. :roll: do not let facts get in the way fo your argument.

No one is arguing that Ashkenazi jews areant jews, just that they are converts ot judaism and are originally Khazars

http://www.khazaria.com/


The Khazars (Heb. sing. "Kuzari" כוזרי plur. "Kuzarim" כוזרים; Arab. خزر; Turk. sing. "Hazar" plur. Hazarlar; Greek Χαζάροι; Russ. Хазары; Tat. sing Xäzär plur. Xäzärlär; Crimean Tatar: sing. Hazar, plur. Hazarlar Persian خزر; Latin "Gazari" or "Cosri") were a semi-nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia, many of whom converted to Judaism. The name 'Khazar' seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering" ('gezer' in modern Turkish). In the 7th century CE they founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea, where over time Judaism became the state religion. At their height, they and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, large portions of the Caucasus (including Dagestan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), and the Crimea.

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


start spinning the propaganda. :roll: :roll:

:lol: I supplied a report from a medical institution that clearly says that Ashkenazi Hbrews are of the same genetic make-up as other Hebrews and you call it pseudo science and then dredge up some loony anti-semitic racial theory from the thirties to support your contention?

That's good.

If you bothered to read the wiki article you link to as support it you would see it supports the truth of the matter. That Ashkenazi Jews are of Hebrew origin. To say they are not is insupportable. It's an easily proven fact

It's the same article I linked to that said this:
Quote: So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria

[cool_chick]

Dash wrote: cool_chick wrote: You have to support deplorable actions of a government or you're "anti-semitic."

It makes no logical sense except to those who think simplistically.

Don't let them get you down.

And conversely, you can say any absurdly paranoid, false, misleading, over the top thing about Israel and be innoculated by simply charing the other side is smearing you as "anti-semetic" for no reason whatsoever. Right?

What did I say that was "paranoid" "false" "misleading", etc.?

Quote: "The Illuminati/Israel nexus" ... gimme a break. So you're supporting this article I assume Cool Chick?

No. I get sick and tired of not being allowed to disagree with the really bad actions of some government in the world without being called horrible names that are not true, slanderous, and downright evil. Antiseminites are evil people to me.

But with regard to the article, I didn't read much of it....but if it's so far fetched, it should be easy to refute. Why not refute it instead of calling people horrible names?

[cool_chick]

George W Bush wrote: Heres the thing with the Jewish Zionist Conspiracy:

I dont adhere to it, first of all. Secondly, Jews make up less than 2% of the world.

I simply dont believe that less than 2% of the world is capable of controlling the world.

Zionists have been able to, however, tug at the hearts of powerful rulers who have the will of their own people to contend to. Since Judaism is the oldest, most well established religion, its easier to convince religious country's to accept the Jewish story.

However, I believe that, regardless, Jews in general can not possibly have the power by which many insist. They are simply too little in number and probably have their own regimented faith to contend with beyond the accused controls of the media, government, etc.

Jews control the world? LOL. no way. Jews can hardly control the state of Israel (about the size of Maryland), let alone the world.

Goiod points.

[Timur The Lame]

*looks at tongue in the mirror*

Yes, I do in fact have a forked tongue.

I'm going to go sunbath a bit as my blood is rather cold.

[Eduffy80911]

If you really want to go back to the root of the conflict, it all started shortly after humans learned to speak and one asked the other where rain came from.

Religion was born, the rest is history.

[Anyis]

cap'n queasy wrote: David Icke is your source, dude.

Are Jews really reptilian aliens?

:lol:

Get out of here with that anti-semitic trash and quit spamming the forum with trash.

He had some good points in their if you'd actually read it all! That's the problem with America, you get simple minded people running around pulling our the discriminating card whenever anyone has a view about race or religion that goes against the norm of mainstream media.

[Timur The Lame]

Anyis wrote: He had some good points in their if you'd actually read it all! That's the problem with America, you get simple minded people running around pulling our the discriminating card whenever anyone has a view about race or religion that goes against the norm of mainstream media.

Honestly. It's not my fault that I’m a reptile.

[cool_chick]

Timur The Lame wrote: Anyis wrote: He had some good points in their if you'd actually read it all! That's the problem with America, you get simple minded people running around pulling our the discriminating card whenever anyone has a view about race or religion that goes against the norm of mainstream media.

Honestly. It's not my fault that I’m a reptile.

Why would you believe you're a reptile?