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.
> 

No Mr Mock, this was anything but a stereotype ritual murder case. 
Evidence leads to guilt in this case.

> 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?
> 

Again, the confessions corroborated each other and they led to David 
Harari's house where blood was found and body parts were found under 
the conduit. You can argue against torture but not against the result 
in this case.

As for the delegation, like you they just assumed that the accused 
were innocent. Like you they were not interested in evidence. They 
reasoning was that Jews had been falsely accused before therefore they 
were falsely accused this time too. Now, how did they  bring about the 
release of the prisoners? Was it by reason, logic, evidence? Or was it 
by something else?

Now don't you be so coy.