100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: FACT SHEET: 45 YEARS OF OCCUPATION | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 06/10/12 10:06 AM
|
|
APARTHEID ANALOGY The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Over the entirety of its 64-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to the start of the occupation in 1967, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, not unlike Palestinians in the occupied territories have been for the past 45 years. And its not really about the Jewish religion. They don't want to convert non Europeans (Arabs or Africans or anyone else) to their acquired religion ("Judaism,") unless (and only unless) they have the same ancestral roots (--> Khazarian) and bloodlines traced through the female. (The Jewish mother.) Having that, they prefer the people be secular (non-religious) anyway. In truth, they don't care about the religion. They only care about the genetics. It is not about religion at all at this point. It is all about racial and ethnic prejudice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Optomistic69
on
Sun 06/10/12 10:27 AM
|
|
APARTHEID ANALOGY The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Over the entirety of its 64-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to the start of the occupation in 1967, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, not unlike Palestinians in the occupied territories have been for the past 45 years. And its not really about the Jewish religion. They don't want to convert non Europeans (Arabs or Africans or anyone else) to their acquired religion ("Judaism,") unless (and only unless) they have the same ancestral roots (--> Khazarian) and bloodlines traced through the female. (The Jewish mother.) Having that, they prefer the people be secular (non-religious) anyway. In truth, they don't care about the religion. They only care about the genetics. It is not about religion at all at this point. It is all about racial and ethnic prejudice. You got it right JB,the Israeli government’s legislation is definitely racist in the limitations it places on Palestinians both in the West Bank and Gaza, as well in the ‘occupied’ territories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APARTHEID ANALOGY The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Over the entirety of its 64-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to the start of the occupation in 1967, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, not unlike Palestinians in the occupied territories have been for the past 45 years. And its not really about the Jewish religion. They don't want to convert non Europeans (Arabs or Africans or anyone else) to their acquired religion ("Judaism,") unless (and only unless) they have the same ancestral roots (--> Khazarian) and bloodlines traced through the female. (The Jewish mother.) Having that, they prefer the people be secular (non-religious) anyway. In truth, they don't care about the religion. They only care about the genetics. It is not about religion at all at this point. It is all about racial and ethnic prejudice. You got it right JB,the Israeli government’s legislation is definitely racist in the limitations it places on Palestinians both in the West Bank and Gaza, as well in the ‘occupied’ territories. Apartheid in "Occupied" Territories? You really need to look up what Apartheid actually is! Fact:Arabs in Israel sit in the Knesset! Fact:Arabs in Israel can Vote! Fact: No Foreigner is allowed to Vote in any Country,seems you call that Apartheid now! Besides,if you're occupied you do not have unlimited Civil Rights! Ask the Germans about it,post WWII! They might tell you! Besides,no Foreigner has the same Political Rights as a Citizen,not in Ireland,not in the US,not in Israel! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APARTHEID ANALOGY The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Over the entirety of its 64-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to the start of the occupation in 1967, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, not unlike Palestinians in the occupied territories have been for the past 45 years. And its not really about the Jewish religion. They don't want to convert non Europeans (Arabs or Africans or anyone else) to their acquired religion ("Judaism,") unless (and only unless) they have the same ancestral roots (--> Khazarian) and bloodlines traced through the female. (The Jewish mother.) Having that, they prefer the people be secular (non-religious) anyway. In truth, they don't care about the religion. They only care about the genetics. It is not about religion at all at this point. It is all about racial and ethnic prejudice. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, just because the Jews founded the original state of Israel and had their religious center the Temple on the Temple mount in Jerusalem, pray facing Jerusalem, and are arguably one of the most documented and studied societies of antiquity... Add that Jews have always lived in Israel continuously since its inception, founded Hebron, buried all their ancestors there and tended their tombs... And Israel was the only country in the world who welcomed refugees from brutal genocidal mass killings in Russia, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, S. America etc. without any reservation or quotas giving them one place of security and freedom. What an idiot. Sand. See the Arch of Titus... The Arch of Titus is a 1st-century honorific arch[1] located on the Via Sacra, Rome, just to the south-east of the Roman Forum. It was constructed in c.82 AD by the Roman Emperor Domitian shortly after the death of his older brother Titus to commemorate Titus' victories, including the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus None of that is accurate because the term "Jew" and what it has come to mean in this century is not the same thing. When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". A Judean was one who was born in the ancient independent and separate kingdom of Judea, a person loyal to the king of Judea, an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judea, and/or one having citizenship rights in the kingdom of Judea. It had nothing to do with any cult or religion. However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation. Nonsense. You obviously don't know diddley about Jewish history! Moreover you fail to recognize your own ignorance about Jews. Start reading the Wiki... Contents 1 Time periods in Jewish history 2 Ancient Jewish history (c. 1500 BCE -37 BCE) 2.1 Ancient Israelites (c. 1500BCE-587 BCE) 2.2 Babylonian captivity (c. 587-518 BCE) 2.3 Post-exilic period (c. 538-332 BCE) 2.3.1 Hellenistic period (c. 332-110 BCE) 2.3.2 The Hasmonean Kingdom (110-63 BCE) 3 Roman rule in the land of Israel (63 BCE - 324 CE) 3.1 The diaspora 3.2 Late Roman period in the Land of Israel 4 Middle Ages 4.1 Byzantine period in the land of Israel (324 - 638) 4.2 Islamic period in the land of Israel (638 - 1099) 4.3 Crusaders period in the land of Israel (1099 - 1260) 4.4 Mamluk period in the land of Israel (1260 - 1517) 4.4.1 Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East 4.5 Europe 5 Early Modern period 5.1 Court Jew 5.2 Iberia 5.3 Port Jew 5.4 Ottoman Empire 5.5 Poland-Lithuania 5.6 The European Enlightenment and Haskalah (18th century) 5.7 Hasidic Judaism 6 19th century 7 20th century 7.1 Modern Zionism 7.2 The Holocaust 7.3 The establishment of the State of Israel 8 21st century 9 Jewish history by country or region 10 See also 11 Footnotes 12 External links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg Where is this so-called "hard evidence?" A link to a cheesy website with commercial ads blinking all over the place? I'm supposed to take that seriously? That's laughable. So where and what is the "hard evidence" that they "may have" been owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon?" ("May Have...") Yeh, like King David "may have" existed. I don't think so. This information exists on many websites and there was a great PBS study done. Too bad you don't have any investigative skills or you would have picked right up on it. There is a wealth of Carbon 14 dating also but that would deal with facts, not opinions, and would, in fact, prove your opinions wrong. Please don't get the impression I expected you to learn anything.  This is, after all, science. Please don't get the impression that finding an old copper mine, carbon dated or not, proves that King David or King Solomon were anything but fictional characters. Fictional characters are and have been invented around historical events and places all the time, especially when the authors are trying to convince people that their fiction is truth. No, its not science. The European Jews and religious fanatics have been desperately dredging up artifacts that they might be able to claim are part of the fiction of the Bible for a long time. I am seriously willing to change my belief in this area if anyone has some credible evidence that comes from credible unbiased people. Someone besides European Jews or the Catholic Church. You don't understand what evidence is. If someone makes a crappy website, you think that is evidence. "Hard evidence" is something that is material and is subject to collation with other data. If a document was written a thousand years ago that Jews were operating mines a hundred miles west of the Dead Sea (just an example) and no one verified that it was true, it may be true or it may just be someone's imagination. If mines were found at this location, then there would be "hard evidence" that the statement was true even if it was false. You don't know the difference. The mines have many examples of accurate carbon dating which is also hard evidence. The layers of debris produced more hard evidence and dated a long period of time of use (all hard evidence). Correlated with knowing who lived when and where puts the puzzle together. There are better sources of information than whatever you have been reading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 06/10/12 09:17 PM
|
|
Metalwing said:
You don't understand what evidence is. If someone makes a crappy website, you think that is evidence. Noooo, apparently it is YOU think a crappy website is evidence. YOU are the person who posted a link to a crappy website after stating that "there is considerable hard evidence." Did you not? Here is the crappy website you posted after YOU made that statement: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg So, I am asking you again, where and what exactly is this so-called "hard evidence" that even slightly proves that "King Soloman's mines" have been discovered? And how much audacity does this crappy website author have, to invent a headline like. "Archaeologists Uncover King Solomon's Copper Mines" --as if there was any truth to it?. Then, in the first paragraph they say, with the magic word "may..." "An international team of archaeologists may have uncovered the copper mines owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon..." And what, if any, evidence did they uncover as to the owner and operator of the mines, that would warrant the claim in title of the article? I will be waiting for your reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. Yes I see that. You don't say it is not true, and you don't say that it is true. So what's the point of saying anything? And I ask myself the same question. Well it is clear that lack the ability to understand the methodology. Please, feel free to return to disseminating hatred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg Where is this so-called "hard evidence?" A link to a cheesy website with commercial ads blinking all over the place? I'm supposed to take that seriously? That's laughable. So where and what is the "hard evidence" that they "may have" been owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon?" ("May Have...") Yeh, like King David "may have" existed. I don't think so. This information exists on many websites and there was a great PBS study done. Too bad you don't have any investigative skills or you would have picked right up on it. There is a wealth of Carbon 14 dating also but that would deal with facts, not opinions, and would, in fact, prove your opinions wrong. Please don't get the impression I expected you to learn anything. This is, after all, science. Please don't get the impression that finding an old copper mine, carbon dated or not, proves that King David or King Solomon were anything but fictional characters. Fictional characters are and have been invented around historical events and places all the time, especially when the authors are trying to convince people that their fiction is truth. No, its not science. The European Jews and religious fanatics have been desperately dredging up artifacts that they might be able to claim are part of the fiction of the Bible for a long time. I am seriously willing to change my belief in this area if anyone has some credible evidence that comes from credible unbiased people. Someone besides European Jews or the Catholic Church. You don't understand what evidence is. If someone makes a crappy website, you think that is evidence. "Hard evidence" is something that is material and is subject to collation with other data. If a document was written a thousand years ago that Jews were operating mines a hundred miles west of the Dead Sea (just an example) and no one verified that it was true, it may be true or it may just be someone's imagination. If mines were found at this location, then there would be "hard evidence" that the statement was true even if it was false. You don't know the difference. The mines have many examples of accurate carbon dating which is also hard evidence. The layers of debris produced more hard evidence and dated a long period of time of use (all hard evidence). Correlated with knowing who lived when and where puts the puzzle together. There are better sources of information than whatever you have been reading. I know it has nothing to do with the website, because this find is well documented. When people are motivated by hatred and prejudice, any evidence you may produce is immaterial, for their minds are made up. It is easier for these people to believe in conspiracy theories promulgated on the internet, than it is to do the hard yards and find the truth with real study. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 06/11/12 02:13 AM
|
|
I'm not the one stating they didn't exist to further my argument, am I? No, you are not. I am. And yes, that is my opinion. If you do not believe they existed or you do not know one way or another, then you have no reason to even discuss the subject. Ah, but I do have reason, for you are the one stating emphatically that they didn't exist, yet, you do not know that, nor can you prove it, and yet, you claim it as evidence to support your argument. Can't you see that this is illogical and fallacious? And I don't feel it is my responsibility to prove something or someone did not exist. Nor I, but I wouldn't make the mistake of using it as 'evidence' either. I am looking for someone who is willing to claim that they did exist and then present their reasons and evidence. Well, that is a very 'safe' statement to make, if not a little myopic. You are talking about individuals so far back in antiquity, that hard physical evidence is scarce. There is a saying in my old faculty: 'A lack of evidence is not evidence'. I know this will be twisted out of context, but it works both ways. Just because the Kingdoms of Israel didn't leave edifices in the same manner as the Egyptians doesn't mean they didn't exist. It is diffcult to find masses of evidence for the Hittites and the Assyrians, but no-one is disputing their authenticity are they? No, because there is nothing political to gain in trying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/11/12 04:06 PM
|
|
Hotrodelux:
...you are the one stating emphatically that they didn't exist, yet, you do not know that, nor can you prove it, and yet, you claim it as evidence to support your argument. Can't you see that this is illogical and fallacious? 1. You do not know what I know or do not know. 2. My claim is that King David, Solomon, Abraham, Joshua, Moses... none of these people were real. There is no credible evidence to suggest they were, and no reason to believe they ever existed. I don't have to prove it either. I am not the one making the claim or assuming that they were real historical figures. Like King Arthur and his quest for the holy grail, King David is a romantic fiction created and written only in "Jewish" texts. Lack of evidence is not evidence, this is, of course, true. (I never said it was.) But I do not need evidence to prove someone or something did or does not exist, speaking scientifically. If there is evidence that certain artifacts found and have been claimed to be "evidence" of the existence a King David, and they are discovered to be a forgery, then I believe that would be hard evidence of a fraud which would support the claim that King David is a fictional character. It would also be evidence that whoever perpetrated this forgery probably has a strong vested interest in continuing the fraud and perpetrating the mythical King David as a real historical person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/11/12 03:30 PM
|
|
A factory for biblical forgeries has been exposed in Jerusalem, among its products being the supposed Solomon Stele, and the Jesus ossuary.
The factory was working undetected for over twenty years, and many museums round the world must, the authorities believe, have many forgeries made here among their exhibits, notably bullae. It is unlikely that it is by chance that the production of epigraphic forgeries has intensified in inverse proportion to the progressive decline of Albrightian optimism regarding the confirmation that facts provided by “biblical archaeology” bring to the text of the Bible. The Tel Dan fragments are suspiciously fresh in their clarity. Unlike other old stelae in which the cuts are damaged, there seems little sign of such natural wear even though the monument had been broken into pieces and incorporated into a wall where it had lain weathering for almost three millennia. The stone was reused in a temple complex that was destroyed about 733 BC by the Assyrian, Tiglath Pileser III. Pottery suggests it was put in place in the wall about 850 BC. It could only have been written by Aramaeans then destroyed by Israelites in this time if it had a short life of only a decade or so (Omri to Ahab). Yet the palaeographic date is a century later according to Professor Giovanni Garbini. Giovanni Garbini notes several other anomalies in the language of the text all of which suggest to him that a forger has been at work, though he does not suggest it is the archaeologist. Professor Fred Cryer of Sheffield University is reported be suspicious too. Russell Gmirkin writes online that he attended a conference at the Israel Museum where Cryer asked him to look carefully at the prominently displayed Tel Dan Inscription. Gmirkin saw scratch marks and recognized the implications. Cryer invited other experts at the seminar to look too, and about half were surprised at what they saw. The others pooh poohed it. Gmirkin videotaped the inscription, discovering two other clues that it had been made on an already broken rock. Any competent and unbiased forensic scientist could quickly tell whether the cuts were modern but none will get the chance. Gmirkin even had to have permission to photograph it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/11/12 03:57 PM
|
|
I know it has nothing to do with the website, because this find is well documented. When people are motivated by hatred and prejudice, any evidence you may produce is immaterial, for their minds are made up. It is easier for these people to believe in conspiracy theories promulgated on the internet, than it is to do the hard yards and find the truth with real study. Hotroddelux: This remark (in bold) is uncalled for and malicious. THE WEBSITE gives no details, and displays the article title making a false claim that: "Archaeologists Uncover King Solomon's Copper Mines." News flash: NO, THEY DIDN'T. And the website is loaded with advertisement links, and blinking display ads, and it is totally and clearly a very biased European Jewish website. (Cheesy IMO) It is simply not an unbiased scientific source for any kind of Science or Archaeology. And if you are implying I am motivated by "hatred and prejudice" please explain why you believe that and why you would say such a thing about anyone you don't know? What would I be "prejudice" against? The Jewish religion? --Not possible since I know nothing about it, and I don't have any concern over what gods people want to worship ---The race of white European Jews? ---Not possible since they are just as white as me. We are both Caucasians, the same race. No prejudice there. You say that "the find is well documented." What does that mean? Where is it well documented? Are the artifacts made available to unbiased Archaeologists to see whether or not they are simply more forgeries? There are many lies in history that are "well documented." That does not mean they are true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would I be "prejudice" against? The Jewish religion? --Not possible since I know nothing about it, and I don't have any concern over what gods people want to worship ---The race of white European Jews? ---Not possible since they are just as white as me. We are both Caucasians, the same race. No prejudice there. Well at least I agree that you know nothing about it! So why would you try to discuss Jews if you don't know anything about the religion?!? Racially, you are simply wrong. The interesting results of the DNA analysis accepted all over the world by all credible scientists shows that Jews of all races have a common genetic ancestry traced to the middle east. But you feel you know better than the biologists and geneticists and the demographers. Although you have studied none of it and only fall back on classic antisemitic stereotypical canards. I am sorry if this appears too frank but I think you really should understand that this is how you are interacting here and in similar threads.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are only two (maybe three) groups who would be very interested in dredging up/and forging evidence to support certain Biblical myths. The first one, of course, are the "Jews." The second would be the Catholic Church, and/or other "Christians." The third would be the "Muslims."
These three world religions all have their foundations squarely on the Bible and idea that there was a real King David and a real Abraham. And yet these religions appear to be at odds with each other over the details. One would think, that seeing as how their religions are founded on these Biblical characters that they would want to know once and for all if these were real people or just a myth. Maybe some of the high ranking officials of these religions do know the truth, and they are working to find enough proof to keep their religions alive and thriving. And maybe they are manufacturing archaeological forgeries and altering time lines to fit Biblical stories. I say that it is time that people demand an unbiased professional look at these so-called artifacts. If they can't get it, then people of the world should toss these fake religions out the window. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/11/12 04:35 PM
|
|
What would I be "prejudice" against? The Jewish religion? --Not possible since I know nothing about it, and I don't have any concern over what gods people want to worship ---The race of white European Jews? ---Not possible since they are just as white as me. We are both Caucasians, the same race. No prejudice there. Well at least I agree that you know nothing about it! So why would you try to discuss Jews if you don't know anything about the religion?!? Because apparently being a "Jew" today has little to do with Judaism. Most of being a Jew in Israel has to do with having a white European Jewish mother. They don't care what religion you practice. I know plenty of people who do not practice Judaism and yet still claim to be "Jewish." Well if that is what they want to claim, far be it from me to tell them they are not. It is apparently not about their religion. Racially, you are simply wrong. The interesting results of the DNA analysis accepted all over the world by all credible scientists shows that Jews of all races have a common genetic ancestry traced to the middle east. But you feel you know better than the biologists and geneticists and the demographers. Although you have studied none of it and only fall back on classic antisemitic stereotypical canards. European Jews are white skinned and anyone can see that if they have eyes. I think I know Caucasian when I see it. I have no need to "study" any biased genetic ancestry traced to anywhere, and I have no reason to believe any such thing. I don't feel I "know better" than some unknown "biologist or geneticist" but I am certainly smart enough to know what "race" is. You should learn what it is. It is about skin color and not about tribal genes or DNA. DUH!!! I am sorry if this appears too frank but I think you really should understand that this is how you are interacting here and in similar threads. You don't know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 06/11/12 04:43 PM
|
|
What would I be "prejudice" against? The Jewish religion? --Not possible since I know nothing about it, and I don't have any concern over what gods people want to worship ---The race of white European Jews? ---Not possible since they are just as white as me. We are both Caucasians, the same race. No prejudice there. Well at least I agree that you know nothing about it! So why would you try to discuss Jews if you don't know anything about the religion?!? Because apparently being a "Jew" today has little to do with Judaism. Most of being a Jew in Israel has to do with having a white European Jewish mother. They don't care what religion you practice. I know plenty of people who do not practice Judaism and yet still claim to be "Jewish." Well if that is what they want to claim, far be it from me to tell them they are not. It is apparently not about their religion. Racially, you are simply wrong. The interesting results of the DNA analysis accepted all over the world by all credible scientists shows that Jews of all races have a common genetic ancestry traced to the middle east. But you feel you know better than the biologists and geneticists and the demographers. Although you have studied none of it and only fall back on classic antisemitic stereotypical canards. European Jews are white skinned anyone can see that if they have eyes. I think I know Caucasian when I see it. I have no need to "study" any biased genetic ancestry traced to anywhere, and I have no reason to believe any such thing. I don't feel I "know better" than some unknown "biologist or geneticist" but I am certainly smart enough to know what "race" is. You should learn what it is. It is about skin color and not about tribal genes or DNA. DUH!!! I am sorry if this appears too frank but I think you really should understand that this is how you are interacting here and in similar threads. You don't know what you are talking about.  Jews are those who practice the relgion Judaism. Almost all of them share a common genetic trait which links them biologically. You have no qualifications to discuss race or biology and you are spouting complete nonsense. You have missed the point of the genetic evidence and try repeatedly to insinuate that the Jews from Europe (even though they also practice the same Judaism and are genetically linked to other Jews around the world) are significantly "less Jewish" which is just hogwash. But of course you know nothing about Judaism or Jews so it makes no sense for you to attack them. Yet you do it repeatedly. At least you acknowledge that you have no basis for your attacks. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of evidence is not evidence, this is, of course, true. (I never said it was.) But I do not need evidence to prove someone or something did or does not exist, speaking scientifically. I just can't help it. This is so funny on so many levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The basis for my criticism is Zionism. If you are claiming that a Jew is a person that practices Judaism then those who claim to be "Jewish" and yet do not practice Judaism are liars.
If you are claiming that all these Jews who allegedly practice Judaism are related or the same "race" then you are just blind.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 06/11/12 04:59 PM
|
|
Lack of evidence is not evidence, this is, of course, true. (I never said it was.) But I do not need evidence to prove someone or something did or does not exist, speaking scientifically. I just can't help it. This is so funny on so many levels. It should be for you because it is something you have said often. If you make a claim that something exists, or existed-- that is when you need evidence. Where would you get evidence for something that does not exist?
|
|
|
|
|
