On 30 Jan, 23:07, Steven Mock <s...@nizkor.org> wrote:
> "thedarkman" <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote innews:1170195764.952183.322000@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> 
> > More ad hominem from Mr Mock.
> 
> Actually, that statement is itself ad hominem, Mr. Baron.  You did not
> cite any information contained in that website to further your argument.
> You merely made the claim that it was an "objective" source, implying
> therefore that the position it takes (which happens to agree with your
> own) should be taken as credible.
> 
> It is therefore entirely appropriate for me, arguing my part, to direct
> attention to evidence that the source you are citing as authoritative
> is, in fact, about as "objective" as *Der Sturmer* in matters regarding
> Jews.
> 
> > The information given here is objective;
> > a lot of the information given by Arnold Leese - whom I know a great
> > deal about - is factual, but with Leese you have to allow for his
> > extreme bias, to put it mildy.
> 
> I really don't know what to say, Mr. Braron.  First you say that the
> information (what information?) is objective, and then - before the
> sentence is even finished - you admit that it is the product of extreme
> bias.  It's like I don't even have to show up anymore.
> 
> > As I pointed out, in 2001 the body of a ritually murdered black boy
> > was recovered from the Thames. The reaction of Africans in Britain was
> > to cooperate with the police and to attempt to bring the murderers to
> > justice. The issue has been openly discussed in the black press.
> > Contrast that with the Jewish attitude, including in the Damascus
> > case. What do you suppose Montefiore, Cremieux and otherwise did in
> > the Middle East?
> 
> The historical record is quite clear that they defended an otherwise
> defenseless community brutalised by false accusations.  I'm sure if
> Africans today were subjected to an accusation that was based solely on
> racist assumptions and confessions extracted by torture to confirm those
> assumptions, they would campaign in defense of the falsely accused as
> well.  Therefore, two cases are not analagous.
> 
> > Do you think they used reason, evidence? Or did they
> > use blackmail, coercion and all the tricks Jewish leaders have become
> > renowned for? That of course is a rhetorical question.
> 
> Of course it is.  Because your case relies entirely on stereotype and
> innuendo.  Reason applied to the evidence leads to the conclusion that
> the accused were innocent.
> 
> By the way, I'm still waiting for you to go beyond this bluster and cite
> even one item of evidence of their guilt that can stand independent of
> the tortured confessions.  You keep claiming that there was such
> evidence, but seem to be doing everything but telling us what it was.
> Why so coy?
> 
> Steven Mock

I can't believe that the Arab fantasia is thought to be appropriate
subject matter for uk.legal!

The following is by Dr Michael Anbar and it's a response to a
PBS "documentary" on antisemitism.  PBS seems rather to
have missed some history!
_

The documentary that was aired on January 8th; "Anti-Semitism in the 
21st Century: The Resurgence" narrated by Judy Woodruff, examines the 
roots of anti-Semitism and how and why it is flourishing today.

What I was missing in this program was the plight of the Jews in 
Muslim countries that have driven out 800,000+ Jews from countries, 
where they lived for 2000 years; this includes Iraq, Egypt and Yemen.

However, what was even more disturbing to me is the omission of the 
fact that the new blood libel against Jews originated in the Islamic 
world; in

Damascus, Syria (1840). It was not originated by Nazi Germany or by 
Russia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_affair

The Beilis trial in 1913 took place in Russia 73 years; AFTER the 
Damascus affair. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Menahem_Mendel_Beilis

In brief this "documentary," as attractive as it might look, has been 
trying systematically to downplay anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, 
while accusing Christianity of being the sole origin of Jewish 
persecution, in line with Western Islamic apologists.

Let me remind you that the Yellow badge to be worn by Jews was 
invented by Muslims in Iraq (in 807!!!) see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow badge Timeline and it was copied 
by the Nazis a thousand years later!

Let me also remind you that the concept of cleansing a country from 
Jews was initiated and accomplished in Arabia by Mohammad; see:

http://www.dangoor.com/71page33.html#Moha4b (making Arabia Judenrein!) 
before the year 700 i.e., 500 years before the expulsion of Jews from 
France in 1182 see:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1182-jewsfrance1.html and from 
England in 1290; see:

http://www.heretical.com/British/jews1290.html

So who has learned from whom?

In brief, this program distorts history, exculpating (at least in 
part) the Muslims. Consequently, I am not sure at all whether this 
program should be promoted as educational material for our kids when 
Islam is targeting our people big time, not because they have learned 
this from the "nasty" Europeans but because hatred of Jews is 
intrinsic in their culture from its inception!

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1653