ForumGarden

it's all a huge conspiracy. the jews serve the ruling elite, and use the niggers as their muscle.



more can be found on any white supremacist website.



also, you'll find lots of people claiming to represent islam who believe all non-muslims must either convert or die. they use shar'ia law and naive young people as their muscle, along with sharp knives and sometimes C4.



then there's good christian folks who blow up abortion clinics.



"Do Jews really think like this?"

"Do Muslims really think like this?"

"Do Christians really think like this?"

you know, i'ts been pointed out to you on several occasions that you may be violating copyright by cut-and-pasting these entire articles here. did you get the author's permission? did the site have a blanket release for republication? at minimum, cite the URL you nabbed the text from.

Scrat wrote: I don't really care, besides I got it from another forum. I am not afraid of your hollow threats.


threat? dude, you need to seriously take a stress pill and lie down.







That's why I say we need to track down the nutcases worldwide, regardless of what they wear on their heads and off them. So NORMAL people can lead their lives IN PEACE.


works for me. so why do you spout garbage like "do jews really think like this?"



how about condemning all nutcases, rather than just jewish ones?

anastrophe wrote: works for me. so why do you spout garbage like "do jews really think like this?"



how about condemning all nutcases, rather than just jewish ones?


Scrat, do you really even have to ask that question (the thread title)? Do you believe at all that all Jews could possibly think this way?

Isn't it obvious that the comments are extreme?

I'd hate to think that you'd find truth in this obvious propaganda

Interesting quote from the front page..............plain old conspiracy theories...........

"How long are Israelis, Jews, and Americans going to be duped by a "my country-right-or-wrong" mentality. Just because we call them "terrorists" doesn't make them so. This label is a convenient excuse to dismiss people we are subjugating. Israel and the US practise state terrorism. Our leaders are covering up 9-11. They belong to the 230-year-old Order of the Illuminati. The goal of this conspiracy is to destroy Western civilization and usurp the role of God. "

http://www.savethemales.ca/index.html

Scrat wrote: It's a little harder to find the goods on the Jewish terrorists,


Am I the only one that finds this comment a little disturbing?

I thought that after the first post, Cher.........................



IMO

The presence of the New World Order tends, in my opinion, to legitimise The Bible. This being so, we will be safe as long as we follow the commandments of Jesus - the two given by Jesus in answer to the question as to which of the laws is the greatest. Jesus, if you remember, opened up the way for the Gentiles to take the path to heaven.

That the Jewish elite forsook God for Mammon, is nothing new.

Scrat wrote:



That has nothing to do with what is posted.




You quoted from that site and listed it as your source, Scrat. So it has bearing on this thread. Or are you quoting out of context?

Scrat, I believe there are extremists in every religious group. Your comment, below:

It's a little harder to find the goods on Jewish terrorists

just struck me as distasteful and made me uncomfortable.

My opinion. And I'm entitled to it.

As you are yours.

I followed the link you provided, and took that off the main page.

Well, if it came from that site, and that is their stance, it does show their perception of things.........................

Scrat wrote: Right and it has nothing to do with what I posted.


as we all watch scrat furiously try to run away from the source he cited.



it's fair game, scrat old boy. you posted, you cited the source, the source turned out to be....not so good a source. and that impeaches what you posted.



it's how the world works buddy. i look forward to you citing some text from the aryan resistance sites soon.

Scrat wrote:

You people need to pull your pants up, you look stupid running from the truth.


you're the one promulgating the anti-jew, anti-israel claptrap, while studiously avoiding any mention that the 'other side' has done anything at all wrong.



i'll gladly admit that the israeli state was created by terrorists. so was the united states. the blood of the past is not the blood of today. today, the israelis defend their borders and their people. the islamofascists are busy trying to tear down those borders, and kill israeli civilians.



again, you've gone days now refusing to acknowledge the negotiated peace that has existed with egypt for 28 years. and with jordan 12 years.



what's wrong with this picture? israel is perfectly capable of living at peace with its neighbors. that is to say, it's non-belligerent, rational neighbors, as opposed to its neighbors that have obsessive-compulsive disorder focused on wiping away the stain that jews represent on islam.



in most respects, israel defeated egypt and jordan, and that's why they agreed to peace - for their own survival. the israelis are fierce fighters, and fierce defenders of their own. egypt apparently decided that they could live with that. and live next to israel without lobbing missiles at their civilians. same for jordan.



yet for you, the problem is the jews.



keep ignoring that israel is perfectly capable of coexisting with its neighbors.

Paul

As a Jew myself

I'd be proud to have you as a member of the 'tribe' :-4

I have never known ANY religion, save those that come from the middle east or the Sea of Rome, to hate so many others so intensly.

Scrat wrote:


more bizarre rant. no acknowledgment that israel's managed to live in peace for 28 years with egypt, and 12 years with jordan.



does their ability to live in peace frighten you, scrat? it would seem so.



you're more intent on finding ways to punish them, than in helping them down the path to further peace.



take their children away! banish them from the human race! ignore that they're capable of living in peace, longterm, negotiated peace!

Scrat wrote: I think you should join them.


28 years at peace with egypt. have i mentioned that scrat?



12 years at peace with jordan.



scrat's preference? no peace, ever, with israel.

Scrat wrote: All those years of peace, on paper only. The will of the people of those nations is what will decide this conflict.


christ, you're full of it up to the hairline, aren't you. 'on paper'?? they're at peace! there's been no fighting between them! no rockets. no missiles. no tanks. no rifles.



wtf do you want? oh, wait. sorry, i forgot you already stated implicitly that you want to see the state of israel destroyed.



you're a despicable person scrat. hey, you've said far worse to me and others many times. so i figure it's worth the personal attack. you're an evil, hate-filled ass.

Scrat wrote: Fraustrated? Calm down son!! you'll hurt my feelings. Not.



Just to be fair the answer would be that I am not sure if they have been. You know about the cloak and dagger crapola that goes on.



I do know that the Israelis have had problems with people sneaking around the Sinai and Gaza ect. Jordan also but to lesser extent.



What standard are you using?



I would say USA and Canada are at "peace" but on the other hand USA and Russia are not by my standards.



Do you have any links with solid information? Please skip the propaganda.


dude, try "google". try getting your "news" from sources other than the fringes, you know, anti-zionism-now.org, hey-hey-ho-ho-all-things-western-have-got-to-go.net, etc.

Scrat wrote: or get caught up on the meds


That's plain mean.

I would like to address the term "islamofascist". It has been bandied about the Garden recently. This term is considered a political epithet. It is deemed an offensive term equivalent to hate speech.

koan wrote: I would like to address the term "islamofascist". It has been bandied about the Garden recently. This term is considered a political epithet. It is deemed an offensive term equivalent to hate speech.


hate speech is a load of PC crap. i'm not surprised you'd play that game. cite your sources while you're at it. "this term is considered a political epithet" - by whom? "it is deemed an offensive term equivalent to hate speech" - by whom? you're playing a game of passive aggressive condemnation.



it's a perfectly valid term to describe islamic fundamentalist zealots who wish to install the caliphate and shar'ia law upon all. it's a perfectly valid term to describe islamic fundamentalist zealots who believe infidels must either convert, or die.



islamofascists. islamic. fascist. the shoe fits.

koan wrote: I would like to address the term "islamofascist". It has been bandied about the Garden recently. This term is considered a political epithet. It is deemed an offensive term equivalent to hate speech.


(for those who don't know, though it should be patently obvious, there is no love lost between koan and i. spot and koan are the only two FG'ers i've ever put on ignore. i eventually removed them both from ignore. i've come to terms with spot - we very aggressively disagree with each other on many things, but i respect his intellect, and ability to disagree in good faith, free of artifice, evasion, hidden agendas. full stop.)

anastrophe wrote: hate speech is a load of PC crap.


AAAAUUUUURRRGHGHGHGGGGGG!!! THANK YOU!!!!! :yh_clap :yh_clap FINALLY!!! Someone said it!!!! :yh_clap :yh_clap

anastrophe wrote: hate speech is a load of PC crap. i'm not surprised you'd play that game. cite your sources while you're at it. "this term is considered a political epithet" - by whom? "it is deemed an offensive term equivalent to hate speech" - by whom? you're playing a game of passive aggressive condemnation.



it's a perfectly valid term to describe islamic fundamentalist zealots who wish to install the caliphate and shar'ia law upon all. it's a perfectly valid term to describe islamic fundamentalist zealots who believe infidels must either convert, or die.



islamofascists. islamic. fascist. the shoe fits.


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

Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism.
Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, argues that the term is offensive and tantamount to hate speech, because it is a desecration that is profoundly insulting to Muslims.

"It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that [Michael] Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word "Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word "fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... amofascism

Islamofascism

Used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government,[1] the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. None label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is both offensive and historically inaccurate.

wikipedia is a horrendously bad source. look into it. you might want to look somewhere other than wikipedia for the reasons why wikipedia is a bad source though.



thanks for the citation though. i'll file it under "more PC crap".

say, how about doing as you routinely recommend, and moving this off-topic discussion elsewhere?

anastrophe wrote: wikipedia is a horrendously bad source. look into it. you might want to look somewhere other than wikipedia for the reasons why wikipedia is a bad source though.



thanks for the citation though. i'll file it under "more PC crap".


The two articles referenced are not under dispute though you may champion the cause if you wish. You asked for a reference, I gave it. I would like to see your references as to why it is a valid term. Watch your sources as well.

koan wrote: The two articles referenced are not under dispute though you may champion the cause if you wish. You asked for a reference, I gave it. I would like to see your references as to why it is a valid term. Watch your sources as well.


who suggested it was invalid? the term exists, that's not disputed. some - juan cole for one, a stooge/apologist for islam - find it offensive. you had used passive terms to suggest it was offensive, rather than coming out and saying you found it offensive (i don't think you do - it's merely grist for your ideological mill). others find it a fitting description for those who advocate violence against infidels and the imposition of medieval shar'ia law on all.



i'm not surprised you'd be on the side of those who advocate forced imposition of a system of law that's antithetical to democracy and freedom.

anastrophe wrote: who suggested it was invalid? the term exists, that's not disputed. some - juan cole for one, a stooge/apologist for islam - find it offensive. you had used passive terms to suggest it was offensive, rather than coming out and saying you found it offensive (i don't think you do - it's merely grist for your ideological mill). others find it a fitting description for those who advocate violence against infidels and the imposition of medieval shar'ia law on all.



i'm not surprised you'd be on the side of those who advocate forced imposition of a system of law that's antithetical to democracy and freedom.


I don't find it offensive so much as I find it illegitimate as a term in debate.

Another form of ad hominem.

koan wrote: I don't find it offensive so much as I find it illegitimate as a term in debate.


whatever suits you. feel free not to use it.





Another form of ad hominem.


i'd really recommend familiarizing yourself with what 'ad hominem' means. because you're completely off the mark characterizing it that way. it's about as coherent as saying "ice cream is just another form of refrigeration".

You still fail to justify your use of the term.

If you know something share it. If you want to throw epithets around, you reduce yourself and do your argument no good.

As far as the title of this thread asks "Do Jews really think like this?" My response is "NO". Jews do not entirely think in one way at all any more than followers of Islam do. Those that do not think this way are often labeled "self-hating Jews".



ETA: for those who like references to simple comments: reference sorry my source isn't better than wikipedia. but this article is also not under dispute.

koan wrote: You still fail to justify your use of the term.
false. i've already stated why i feel it's a perfectly legitimate descriptor.





If you know something share it. If you want to throw epithets around, you reduce yourself and do your argument no good.


i'm devastated.