CDZ Internet consorship

[Josf]

Inculpatory evidence is typically censored when criminals gain the power to do so, it is called cover-up. Assassination (conspiracy murder) is a typical example of a criminal censoring, and covering up, inculpatory evidence. The information that points this out is often censored, and that process can be inculpatory in the form of something deceptively known as willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a goal? How can someone know precisely what they want to ignore? If someone knows that they want to ignore something, then they know, they are not ignorant concerning what they do not want to know, supposedly, which inculpates, or stands as incuplatory evidence, proving the fact that, at least, the willfully ignorant are choosing to employ their power to know, in the work required to deceive other's as well as, potentially, deceiving themselves.

The icing on the cake, or the outermost layer of deception, includes this idea that ignoring your own ignorance may someday result in knowledge.

The reason why, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated, is the same reason why there was no trial by jury employed by the free people, for the free people, and of the free people, to discover the legal facts concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr. The facts point straight at the most evil criminals perpetrating the most evil crimes, such as war of aggression for profit, which includes the capital crimes of fraud, treason, mass murder, and genocide.

The same reasoning works in the Palestinian genocide, to wipe out all the potential witnesses who may testify to free people demanding to know precisely who is guilty of all that mass murder that just so happens to profit specific people in positions of power to order, and set in motion, all that mass murder of all those Palestinians.

The same reasoning works upon individuals, in the face of inculpatory evidence, to resort to character assassination upon everyone daring to publish inculpatory evidence that can easily be employed by free people when free people seek to find who precisely is issuing the criminal orders to exterminate whole populations of people.

If Americans Knew - What every American needs to know about Israel Palestine

 

[irosie91]

Inculpatory evidence is typically censored when criminals gain the power to do so, it is called cover-up. Assassination (conspiracy murder) is a typical example of a criminal censoring, and covering up, inculpatory evidence. The information that points this out is often censored, and that process can be inculpatory in the form of something deceptively known as willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a goal? How can someone know precisely what they want to ignore? If someone knows that they want to ignore something, then they know, they are not ignorant concerning what they do not want to know, supposedly, which inculpates, or stands as incuplatory evidence, proving the fact that, at least, the willfully ignorant are choosing to employ their power to know, in the work required to deceive other's as well as, potentially, deceiving themselves.

The icing on the cake, or the outermost layer of deception, includes this idea that ignoring your own ignorance may someday result in knowledge.

The reason why, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated, is the same reason why there was no trial by jury employed by the free people, for the free people, and of the free people, to discover the legal facts concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr. The facts point straight at the most evil criminals perpetrating the most evil crimes, such as war of aggression for profit, which includes the capital crimes of fraud, treason, mass murder, and genocide.

The same reasoning works in the Palestinian genocide, to wipe out all the potential witnesses who may testify to free people demanding to know precisely who is guilty of all that mass murder that just so happens to profit specific people in positions of power to order, and set in motion, all that mass murder of all those Palestinians.

The same reasoning works upon individuals, in the face of inculpatory evidence, to resort to character assassination upon everyone daring to publish inculpatory evidence that can easily be employed by free people when free people seek to find who precisely is issuing the criminal orders to exterminate whole populations of people.

If Americans Knew - What every American needs to know about Israel Palestine

Inculpatory evidence is typically censored when criminals gain the power to do so, it is called cover-up. Assassination (conspiracy murder) is a typical example of a criminal censoring, and covering up, inculpatory evidence. The information that points this out is often censored, and that process can be inculpatory in the form of something deceptively known as willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a goal? How can someone know precisely what they want to ignore? If someone knows that they want to ignore something, then they know, they are not ignorant concerning what they do not want to know, supposedly, which inculpates, or stands as incuplatory evidence, proving the fact that, at least, the willfully ignorant are choosing to employ their power to know, in the work required to deceive other's as well as, potentially, deceiving themselves.

The icing on the cake, or the outermost layer of deception, includes this idea that ignoring your own ignorance may someday result in knowledge.

The reason why, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated, is the same reason why there was no trial by jury employed by the free people, for the free people, and of the free people, to discover the legal facts concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr. The facts point straight at the most evil criminals perpetrating the most evil crimes, such as war of aggression for profit, which includes the capital crimes of fraud, treason, mass murder, and genocide.

The same reasoning works in the Palestinian genocide, to wipe out all the potential witnesses who may testify to free people demanding to know precisely who is guilty of all that mass murder that just so happens to profit specific people in positions of power to order, and set in motion, all that mass murder of all those Palestinians.

The same reasoning works upon individuals, in the face of inculpatory evidence, to resort to character assassination upon everyone daring to publish inculpatory evidence that can easily be employed by free people when free people seek to find who precisely is issuing the criminal orders to exterminate whole populations of people.

If Americans Knew - What every American needs to know about Israel Palestine

to what "whole populations" of people do you refer?------Darfur? Biafra? -----for the record----to what "mass murder"
of Palestinians do you refer? I have heard that the Assads have been brutal---------and that there was a mass murder of
'palestinians' in Jordan-------but I have no idea just how MASSIVE. Has any of this been documented?

 

[Josf]

"Has any of this been documented?"

The point of the topic has to do with censorship. The point of documenting something is the opposite of censorship. If no one is left alive to care about the genocide, then, logically, documentation of the genocide is pointless.

An eyewitness to genocide a night in Khuza a International Solidarity Movement

If the "reaction" to genocide is to become the mass murderer of those guilty of genocide, then that in the age old routine of an eye for an eye, or might makes right, or whichever words describe (document) the killing of the killers who are presumed to be the killers based upon documentation.

Why do you ask?

"Has any of this been documented?"

If those doing the killing stop doing the killing, then the targets remain living on the land of their ancestors for as long as they care to remain on the land of their ancestors, which can conceivably be as many generations as have already passed.

If the point about asking for documentation is to ignore it, then that is one point. If the point about asking for documentation is to then act upon the documentation with an aggressive attack of anyone who might be guilty, then that is the point. If the point about asking for documentation is to then set in motion something free people know as due process of law, where fact finding is the goal, and alleged perpetrators are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a number of randomly selected people in the place where the alleged crime occurred, where the verdict of guilt or innocence is a power commanded by jurists in any case, and unanimity is required in establishing guilt, as the randomly selected jurists represent the whole country of people as "trial by the country" is meaning intended to be conveyed accurately with words, and one individual jurist can acquit, and set free the accused, then if that is the point of asking for documentation the point is not to ignore the documentation, and the point is not to use documentation as a launching point for more aggressive violence targeting innocent victims.

 

[irosie91]

Your verbiage is ludicrous. If you hope to be a lawyer----never inflict that kind of verbiage on a judge---
he will throw your petition in the 'circular file'. For
the record----very few people live in precisely the same place that their ancestors have lived and few
have the OPTION to do so. As I waded thru the
forest of words which you generated-----I picked up
some words that seem to indicate that you have a belief that everyone has an absolute right to the house in which his great-grandfather was born. I don't------do you?. Since you have made that
assertion----do you believe it is true for ALL people?

 

[irosie91]

PS----according to your citation----no genocide was
documented in Khuza. Had there been a genocide---it would have been a very simple matter
to document it. In fact the citation indicated that a
genocide DID NOT take place. The title of the article
seems misleading to me.

 

[Josf]

"Your verbiage is ludicrous."

That form of internet censorship is the Man of Straw argument. The attempt here is to remove from view the actual documentation that was requested, and put in place of the actual documentation requested a weak (false) caricature of the targeted individual (me) who dared to actually supply the demanded documentation requested by the individual who demonstrates, in point of fact, a clear example of internet censorship. This is also called shooting the messenger.

"If you hope to be a lawyer..." SNIP

More words above are again words describing a fictitious (straw man) that does not exist anywhere other than the world imagined by the author of the character assassination attempt. The fictional character imagined by the creator of the fictional character imagines that the fictional character might "hope" some "hope" and then the creator of the imaginary character is, of course, going to imagine that there is no hope for the hopes of this imaginary character; meanwhile the subject matter concerning the forum topic is demonstrated as yet again another case of internet censorship in the form of character assassination, which is against the rules that character assassins care not to follow.

"...of crap on..."

That is a direct personal attack perpetrated by one forum member upon another forum member published in front of God and everyone who cares to follow simple rules. The negative, subjective, description is printed in the form of a statement of fact, when the subjective opinion is clearly nothing more than a misdirection away from the subject matter of the topic and a move to focus attention onto a fictitious being created by this character assassin, as the fictitious being is supposedly guilty of crapping here in this forum. This is also something that can fall under the heading of transference or projection as the one with negative character flaws may project and transfer their flaws outward in an attempt to falsely accused other people of doing precisely what they do in time and place.

"If you hope to be a lawyer----never inflict that kind of crap on a judge---he will throw your petition in the 'circular file'."

If the subject matter turns from internet censorship and the subject matter turns decidedly toward rule of law, such as the rule of law described in the Bill of Rights, then the common law adapted to America from England is one example of rule of law. If on the other hand the subject matter turns to dictatorial powers commanded by devil worshipers in black robes, belonging to a cult, where their oath of allegiance is said to be connected to a foreign corporation, or Union, known as the BAR (British Accredited Registry) then that would be another, competitive, alternate, and decidedly opposite form of "law."

That, on the other hand, can be compared to rule of law according to people either following the rules posted in the Forum, or whichever rules are made up by people choosing to resort to character assassination on the Forum where that is against the rules - in front of God and everyone.

"...words that seem to indicate that you have a belief that everyone has an absolute right to the house in which his great-grandfather was born..."

My understanding of life here on this planet is not belief, so the direction taken in the words above going toward belief and away from understanding is a direction chosen by the author of the quote above, not a direction chosen by me. Belief is another topic.

"I don't------do you?."

Do I understand the nature of relationships among free people compared to relationships among slaves enslaving each other, or are you really looking for someone to speak to concerning beliefs?

"Since you have made that assertion----do you believe it is true for ALL people?"

The assertion you speak about could be anything, as you have spoken about "crap" on one hand (bad cop) during your character assassination attempt, and now (good cop) you are all nice and civil?

I wrote this:

"If those doing the killing stop doing the killing, then the targets remain living on the land of their ancestors for as long as they care to remain on the land of their ancestors, which can conceivably be as many generations as have already passed."

Is that crap according to you, or is that the assertion you ask about in your civil question?

If that is seen as an assertion, instead of what it is, then what do you actually assert, what is your assertion that you are inspired to assert? I don't see any reason to change what I wrote from what I wrote to something that I did not write.

I can try to convey the same intended message with an attempt at rewriting the words.

I can employ the documentation provided in this effort to rewrite the message I offered.

If those doing the killing (On Monday night, July the 21st, Israeli forces started to bomb Khuza’a heavily, with the aim of destroying it.) stop doing the killing, then the targets remain living on the land (Khuza’a) of their ancestors for as long as they care to remain on the land of their ancestors, which can conceivably be as many generations as have already passed.

 

[Josf]

"In fact the citation indicated that a genocide DID NOT take place."

Judge, Jury, and executioner, or character assassin, is routine for some.

That is not, however, news.

http://www.orange-papers.org/Survival_of_a_Fitting_Quotation.pdf

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination.”

 

[irosie91]

you did it again------massive verbiage and lots of sophistry and silly assertions. Your use of the
terms "transference" and "projection" are attempts
on YOUR PART to commit character assassination
against me-----and yet you accuse me thereof. My
comment regarding "massive verbiage" is, simply,
fact. My comment regarding the fact that there was
no genocide in Khuza is also FACT. That the article
was titled in a very misleading way-----is a VERY IMPORTANT FACT-----misleading titles are characteristic of propaganda

 

[Josf]

To anyone caring to know about the actual topic of censorship. It is well known that statements of fact do not constitute wrongdoing, such as the wrongdoing well known as libel, where there may be rule of law. Censorship of damaging falsehoods written by a deceiver in an attempt to injure a victim is not wrongdoing. That is why it is not wrongdoing to censor someone who foments a riot, or why shouting fire in a crowded theater is ill advised as the obvious consequences, compared to orderly evacuation, is less injury done to innocent people.

Where there is no rule of law a character assassin can run amok, and in defense against the character assassins character assassination ATTEMPTS the defendant/defender accurately points out something factual, that statement/assertion/claim/accusation/report of factual information is factual, objective, demonstrable, provable, evidential, and is contrasted, obviously, with demonstrable subjective, and false, examples of character assassination.

Also, this is not even a question of who fired the first shot, and who, in defense, fired back, as one might be led to believe. If the first shot fired is FALSE, then it is FALSE in fact, and if the defensive return is TRUE, then the return, in defense, is TRUE in fact.

As to the idea that the criminals perpetrating the crime of cover-up, or fraud, or destruction of evidence, or libel, voluntarily admitting that yes, that is precisely what was done in time and place: is a belief system. I happen not to believe in that belief system whereby the perpetrators will voluntarily lay down and confess that yes, you caught me, I am most certainly guilty of mass genocide, or libel.

 

[irosie91]

To anyone caring to know about the actual topic of censorship. It is well known that statements of fact do not constitute wrongdoing, such as the wrongdoing well known as libel, where there may be rule of law. Censorship of damaging falsehoods written by a deceiver in an attempt to injure a victim is not wrongdoing. That is why it is not wrongdoing to censor someone who insights a riot, or why shouting fire in a crowded theater is ill advised as the obvious consequences, compared to orderly evacuation, is less injury done to innocent people.

Where there is no rule of law a character assassin can run amok, and in defense against the character assassins character assassination ATTEMPTS the defendant/defender accurately points out something factual, that statement/assertion/claim/accusation/report of factual information is factual, objective, demonstrable, provable, evidential, and is contrasted, obviously, with demonstrable subjective, and false, examples of character assassination.

Also, this is not even a question of who fired the first shot, and who, in defense, fired back, as one might be led to believe. If the first shot fired is FALSE, then it is FALSE in fact, and if the defensive return is TRUE, then the return, in defense, is TRUE in fact.

As to the idea that the criminals perpetrating the crime of cover-up, or fraud, or destruction of evidence, or libel, voluntarily admitting that yes, that is precisely what was done in time and place, is a belief system. I happen not to believe in that belief system where by the perpetrators will voluntarily lay down and confess that yes, you caught me, I am most certainly guilty of mass genocide, or libel.

you did it again. In fact you did libel me when you used the terms "transference" and "projection" -----libel since your accusation is not true. As to your use of the word "genocide" ---to what are you referring? Certainly not Khurza.
Your citation offers no evidence of genocide at all.
Using the term genocide for that operation is libel.
""" mass genocide""" no less

 

[Josf]

Censorship again, internet or otherwise, as the subject matter to be discussed in this Clean Debate Zone.

"This is also something that can fall under the heading of transference or projection as the one with negative character flaws may project and transfer their flaws outward in an attempt to falsely accused other people of doing precisely what they do in time and place."

Above is clearly a subjective opinion as demonstrated with the word choices "can" and "may" as in "can fall under" and "may project" which was intentionally offered not as a statement of fact in this case; therefore the following is false:

"In fact you did libel me when you used the terms "transference" and "projection" -----libel since your accusation is not true."

If the shoe fit then the one that the shoe fits is the one wearing the shoe, if not, then not.

"Using the term genocide for that operation is libel."

If someone were to exist in a country, or geographical area, where rule of law was in force, which is demonstrably not the case where genocide is rewarded, and where reward is also offered and accepted by those who cover up genocide effectively with lies, so not in those places will rule of law be enforce, but in places where rule of law is in force: any accuser will have any accusation processed according to rule of law, such as the common laws described in the American Bill of Rights. If 25 free people are randomly selected from the whole country (the geographical area where the alleged crime has occurred) assembled into a Grand Jury to represent the accuser and to either find the accusation to be valid, or not valid, and if valid, then the unanimous decision to take the next step is written as a Presentment which is then naming the accused, or those accused, by name, and naming the victim, or the many victims by name, and the accused will be afforded a trial by jury. If the accusation is false, as your words suggest, then rule of law works in such a manner as to afford you the opportunity to represent the whole country, when you volunteer as a member of a Grand Jury, and then your nullification of the accusation, based upon your say so, counts.

 

[Bleipriester]

I really don´t know what Islamic prophets have to do with this topic.

The topic seems to me to be the censoring of "anti" --this or that religion propaganda. I agree to any censoring which is EQUITABLE ----that is-----any censoring of anti muslim or anti hindu, or anti jewish etc etc propaganda on the net should be done using EQUITABLE CRITERIA

No. The topic is Israel´s effort to eliminate criticism towards its policies.

not exactly-----the issue was the rampant islamo Nazi propaganda -----including the filth of holocaust denial that fills the media. Islamo Nazi propaganda did not get invented in 1948----it has been around for 1700 years -------well-----with the "islamo" part -----it is a 1400 year thing. I read islamo Nazi propaganda as a child because I grew up in a Nazi town-----lots of the stuff I read was written in the late 1800s.

Just for that we understand each other: You mean the holocaust was denied 1700 years ago?

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

 

[irosie91]

Censorship again, internet or otherwise, as the subject matter to be discussed in this Clean Debate Zone.

"This is also something that can fall under the heading of transference or projection as the one with negative character flaws may project and transfer their flaws outward in an attempt to falsely accused other people of doing precisely what they do in time and place."

Above is clearly a subjective opinion as demonstrated with the word choices "can" and "may" as in "can fall under" and "may project" which was intentionally offered not as a statement of fact in this case; therefore the following is false:

"In fact you did libel me when you used the terms "transference" and "projection" -----libel since your accusation is not true."

If the shoe fit then the one that the shoe fits is the one wearing the shoe, if not, then not.

"Using the term genocide for that operation is libel."

If someone were to exist in a country, or geographical area, where rule of law was in force, which is demonstrably not the case where genocide is rewarded, and where reward is also offered and accepted by those who cover up genocide effectively with lies, so not in those places will rule of law be enforce, but in places where rule of law is in force: any accuser will have any accusation processed according to rule of law, such as the common laws described in the American Bill of Rights. If 25 free people are randomly selected from the whole country (the geographical area where the alleged crime has occurred) assembled into a Grand Jury to represent the accuser and to either find the accusation to be valid, or not valid, and if valid, then the unanimous decision to take the next step is written as a Presentment which is then naming the accused, or those accused, by name, and naming the victim, or the many victims by name, and the accused will be afforded a trial by jury. If the accusation is false, as your words suggest, then rule of law works in such a manner as to afford you the opportunity to represent the whole country, when you volunteer as a member of a Grand Jury, and then your nullification of the accusation, based upon your say so, counts.

You have actually said nothing. Do you work in any field of law? I have had a recent experience
with lawyers who write extensively ----generate endless verbiage and stretch sophistry to the point of obscenity and, like you----say nothing. Your careless use of the words "projection" and "transference" constitute an obscenity. Every profession and every vocation has a LINGO-----
The terms "projection" and "transference" have nothing to do with your vocation or avocation or profession should you have one. They are important concepts in the fields of psychology and
Psychiatry----technical terms. It's ok---if you are a lawyer-----an elderly lawyer once told me ----
"I sell nothing other than time and words".
Your careless use of the word 'genocide' --is also
obscene and not mitigated by your detour into
"legal argument 101"

 

[irosie91]

The topic seems to me to be the censoring of "anti" --this or that religion propaganda. I agree to any censoring which is EQUITABLE ----that is-----any censoring of anti muslim or anti hindu, or anti jewish etc etc propaganda on the net should be done using EQUITABLE CRITERIA

No. The topic is Israel´s effort to eliminate criticism towards its policies.

not exactly-----the issue was the rampant islamo Nazi propaganda -----including the filth of holocaust denial that fills the media. Islamo Nazi propaganda did not get invented in 1948----it has been around for 1700 years -------well-----with the "islamo" part -----it is a 1400 year thing. I read islamo Nazi propaganda as a child because I grew up in a Nazi town-----lots of the stuff I read was written in the late 1800s.

Just for that we understand each other: You mean the holocaust was denied 1700 years ago?

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

 

[Bleipriester]

No. The topic is Israel´s effort to eliminate criticism towards its policies.

not exactly-----the issue was the rampant islamo Nazi propaganda -----including the filth of holocaust denial that fills the media. Islamo Nazi propaganda did not get invented in 1948----it has been around for 1700 years -------well-----with the "islamo" part -----it is a 1400 year thing. I read islamo Nazi propaganda as a child because I grew up in a Nazi town-----lots of the stuff I read was written in the late 1800s.

Just for that we understand each other: You mean the holocaust was denied 1700 years ago?

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

You have simply no idea about European history, that´s all.

 

[irosie91]

not exactly-----the issue was the rampant islamo Nazi propaganda -----including the filth of holocaust denial that fills the media. Islamo Nazi propaganda did not get invented in 1948----it has been around for 1700 years -------well-----with the "islamo" part -----it is a 1400 year thing. I read islamo Nazi propaganda as a child because I grew up in a Nazi town-----lots of the stuff I read was written in the late 1800s.

Just for that we understand each other: You mean the holocaust was denied 1700 years ago?

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

You have simply no idea about European history, that´s all.

In fact I do. Your concept that the first jews in
Germany were some businessmen the king wanted is incorrect--------make that "the rhine valley"---I have no idea when Germany got named "GERMANY" Thruout histoy jews migrated to places where jews already lived------they had to---
otherwise they would end up in places with no
kosher deli

 

[Bleipriester]

Just for that we understand each other: You mean the holocaust was denied 1700 years ago?

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

You have simply no idea about European history, that´s all.

In fact I do. Your concept that the first jews in
Germany were some businessmen the king wanted is incorrect--------make that "the rhine valley"---I have no idea when Germany got named "GERMANY" Thruout histoy jews migrated to places where jews already lived------they had to---
otherwise they would end up in places with no
kosher deli

In fact, you have no idea. "Being invited" means that the Jews did not came as refugees but as privileged people. "Privileged" in that case is a bloomy term for no discrimination. Although Jews were not popular because of there religious law to do no handicraft and although, on the other hand, the Christians´ religious law prohibited to demand loans for credits, the Jews were seen as economic boost for the hosters.

This is how the by far largest Jewish society in Europe came into existing. There has been no discrimination of Jews until the Nazis were elected into the government and millions of Jews used to live as normal national citizens in the country. There were exceptions of course but they were limited to "federal states" of the "Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation" and were temporarily only. This is a conflict which the Jews face when the people gets financial dependent on them. If there was any country that the Jews called their home in that times, it was Germany and they even established their own language, Jiddisch.

 

[irosie91]

No----anti-Semitism was taught in Arabia and the community of jews there was subjected to comprehensive genocide. The Koran includes anti semitic writings. I do not think that the
genocide of jews in Arabia back then is called "holocaust"----
The fact that it was a genocide is, kinda, denied by muslims
I have known

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

You have simply no idea about European history, that´s all.

In fact I do. Your concept that the first jews in
Germany were some businessmen the king wanted is incorrect--------make that "the rhine valley"---I have no idea when Germany got named "GERMANY" Thruout histoy jews migrated to places where jews already lived------they had to---
otherwise they would end up in places with no
kosher deli

In fact, you have no idea. "Being invited" means that the Jews did not came as refugees but as privileged people. "Privileged" in that case is a bloomy term for no discrimination. Although Jews were not popular because of there religious law to do no handicraft and although, on the other hand, the Christians´ religious law prohibited to demand loans for credits, the Jews were seen as economic boost for the hosters.

early on----when jews first went to the rhine valley----they were migrants-----not refugees ----I am intrigued -----from what propaganda source did you
"learn" that jews have a religious law to "do no handicraft"???? Syrian grammar school?.
In many "arab" countries-----DA JOOOOS were
the artisans doing the leather work, metal work,,
and textile work -------there were probably a few jews in the rhine valley even in pre Christian times.

getting back to your 'no handicraft' thing----you might be referring to the situation in Christian countries in which jews were kept out of "professional guilds"------by Christian law----of the Nazi variety. Adolf did not invent it

 

[Josf]

Censorship arrives in many forms. Note the move back to the topic.

"----generate endless verbiage and stretch sophistry to the point of obscenity and, like you----say nothing."

One form of censorship involves misdirection, mischaracterization, and attempts at libel, where the target of the libel may or may not suffer in any way as a direct result of the attempt at libel.

Note the repetitive claims where the one making the claim claims that subjective opinion is not subjective opinion, which is false as it is demonstrated as being false, or self-evident, or perhaps prima facie.

The actual content of the subjective opinion claimed to be factual is itself contradictory due to the willful choice (or routine repetition) of absolute terms such as "endless" and "nothing," which logically, and reasonably, are demonstrably not possible. And end is much more certain than "endless verbiage," and so long as at least one single individual responds to what was written, or said, then obviously something was written, or said, rather than nothing being said or written. Something had to be said in order for there to be a response of character assassination, libel, as exemplified with the false statement: "-say nothing."

If there is to be censorship, reasonably there is to be something to censor.

"Your careless use of the words "projection" and "transference" constitute an obscenity."

Censoring information that constitutes knowledge, such as an awareness of the often repeated processes known as projection and transference is likely, if someone were to gain, in some way, by resorting to censorship of said information that constitutes knowledge. Who is likely to gain from censoring knowledge?

"The terms "projection" and "transference" have nothing to do with your vocation or avocation or profession should you have one."

The target of libel can be accurately identified as such, and on the other hand the character assassin creates more lies that attempt to construct a false version of the target; as exemplified well in the example above.

"It's ok---if you are a lawyer-----..."

Judge, jury, and executioner, all in one, acquits his or her imaginary subject of his or her interest?

"... careless use of the word 'genocide'..."

I care enough about the massive slaughter and torture of innocent lives to speak out against it even while other people prefer to censor the free exchange of the facts.

 

[Bleipriester]

'
from captain blei
I mean there could have been some "prophets" prophesying that there will be no holocaust or something. And well, it started good for the Jews when they where invited to Germany in the 14th Century.

rosie>>>
what are you trying to "communicate" captain blei? ------jews were in the area of land now called
Germany LONG before the 14th century. You seem to have a kind of belief in crystal balls

You have simply no idea about European history, that´s all.

In fact I do. Your concept that the first jews in
Germany were some businessmen the king wanted is incorrect--------make that "the rhine valley"---I have no idea when Germany got named "GERMANY" Thruout histoy jews migrated to places where jews already lived------they had to---
otherwise they would end up in places with no
kosher deli

In fact, you have no idea. "Being invited" means that the Jews did not came as refugees but as privileged people. "Privileged" in that case is a bloomy term for no discrimination. Although Jews were not popular because of there religious law to do no handicraft and although, on the other hand, the Christians´ religious law prohibited to demand loans for credits, the Jews were seen as economic boost for the hosters.

early on----when jews first went to the rhine valley----they were migrants-----not refugees ----I am intrigued -----from what propaganda source did you
"learn" that jews have a religious law to "do no handicraft"???? Syrian grammar school?.
In many "arab" countries-----DA JOOOOS were
the artisans doing the leather work, metal work,,
and textile work -------there were probably a few jews in the rhine valley even in pre Christian times.

getting back to your 'no handicraft' thing----you might be referring to the situation in Christian countries in which jews were kept out of "professional guilds"------by Christian law----of the Nazi variety. Adolf did not invent it

Then give me your explanation for the Jew´s arrival and taking over the financial sector. No Adolf, Adolf, Adolf chorus, please.