It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:06 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:38 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Hi Catherine,

I haven't read the book, but I'm not surprised at all. :wink:

A friend of mine is here with me and he says I forgot to point out the Clay Shaw link that Jim Garrison (Louisiana District Attorney) wanted to bring to light. My friend says to follow Clay Shaw and the outfit he worked for, (Trade Mart in New Orleans) and that would lead to Permindex Corp., which was a front for the Israeli Mossad. Seems JFK was worried about Israel's nuclear program?

Anyway, I think I'll check around the net a bit and see if I can confirm any of friend's theory. If I find anything concrete, I think I'll add that it to the list in my last post and any others I find. I suppose one could write a book on possible leads though?

Best!

Sir ...

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:55 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 8:05 am
Posts: 113
Location: Old Europe
...."After the embarrassing failure of the invasion, which never evoked the hoped-for spontaneous anti-Castro insurrection, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, his Harrimanite deputy Bissell, and CIA deputy Director Charles Cabell (whose brother was the mayor of Dallas at the time Kennedy was shot)."

also from the http://www.apfn.org/bush/bushb.htm

J

_________________
Music & More


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Coverups Uncovered ...
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:52 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Coverups Uncovered

Bronfman, Bush, Cheney
Seagrams, Zapata, Brown & Root
ALL INTERCONNECTED IN THE SPIDER'S WEB


After serving as Secretary of Defense for President Bush, Cheney reaped the financial rewards of the revolving money door between the military and industry. Cheney became a member of the board of directors of Morgan Stanley. the Union Pacific Corp., Procter & Gamble Co. and Electronic Data Systems Corp. (Ross Perot company) But, most important, in 1995 Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton (owner of Brown and Root) ( Cheney, the chairman of the board, holds a $45.5 million stake as Halliburton's biggest individual stockholder. Brown and Root reaped multi-millions from the Bosnia war.

In 1998 Richard Cheney got the idea that Halliburton should purchase Dresser Industries, for $8.1 billion (creating the world's largest oil-drilling services company) while on a quail hunt with Dresser chair Bill Bradford. Dresser and Halliburton merged. Dresser Industries was owned and operated by Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott Bush (George H.W.'s father) was a partner of Brown Brothers and on the board of Dresser for decades until he became a U.S. Senator. ---> Read all at link below.

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/r ... nsjfk.html

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Bronfmans and the JFK Assassination ... Final Judgement
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:59 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
The Rest of the Story

The Bronfmans and the JFK Assassination

Michael Piper's book on JFK's assassination creates a huge controversy on campus

MICHAEL PIPER

Michael Piper was one of the scheduled speakers at a seminar that was cancelled at the South Orange County Community College District. Piper is the author of "Final Judgment."

Speakers on the JFK assassination have been popular on American campuses for 30 years. Yet, the thesis of my book - "Final Judgment" - is one that some don't want students to even hear: that Israel's spy agency, the Mossad, played a role with the CIA and the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate in the murder of President Kennedy.

My book is not yet "banned in Boston," but it is banned in Orange County, so it seems. The very week the American Library Association and the National Association of College Stores sponsored "Banned Books Week," controversy raged in Orange County because some were upset that Steve Frogue, president of the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCD) trustees, had invited me to discuss "Final Judgment" at an SOCCD seminar on the JFK assassination.

Although heavy-handed lobbying forced cancellation of the seminar, there's now a drive to remove Frogue from office for believing in our Constitution's guarantee that Americans have the right to express differing points of view.

Israeli diplomat Uri Palti says "Final Judgment" is "nonsense." Yet, contradictorily, critics still declare my discoveries "dangerous" - that my findings shouldn't be heard by "impressionable" kids.

Unfortunately, because of what critics allege, many people believe I "deny the Holocaust," which is not true. However, for the record, my book does not discuss the Holocaust.

Here is what "Final Judgment" contends:

In 1963, JFK was embroiled in a bitter (then secret) conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel's drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, having told JFK that because of JFK's policies, Israel's "existence [was] in danger." Upon JFK's assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround.

This is all documented by Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh in "The Samson Option," by Andrew Cockburn in "Dangerous Liaison," and by Stephen Green in "Taking Sides" - each a respected historian. Where, then, is the "Israeli connection" to the assassination? The fact is that when New Orleans DA Jim Garrison prosecuted Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the JFK assassination, Garrison stumbled upon the Mossad link.

Although Shaw was exposed as a CIA asset, Shaw was involved in 1963 in covert activities with high-level Mossad officer Tibor Rosenbaum, whose Swiss bank laundered mob money for Meyer Lansky, "chairman" of the crime syndicate.

Some say "the Mafia killed JFK." In fact, the Mafia bosses accused of "whacking" JFK - Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante - were not only Lansky subordinates but also CIA collaborators in plots against Fidel Castro.

And while many accuse the CIA's James Angleton of a role in the assassination cover-up, none mention that Angleton, the CIA's Mossad liaison, was a devoted partisan of Israel.

In light of the hysteria over "Final Judgment," recall JFK's words: "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

More ..

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/r ... nsjfk.html

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I don't really know much about it.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:46 pm 
Offline
Lots to Say
Lots to Say

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 34
Location: San Diego
I've read that the night before the assassination, JFK met with three men in a motel room. The three were Johnson, Connally, and a Texas banker. Johnson became President, Connally because Sec'ty. of the Treasury, and the banker became Sec'ty. of the Navy.

When Connally was hit, he yelled, "My God, they're going to kill us all," instead of, "My God, they're shooting at us." That sure sounds like he'd known beforehand that JFK was going to be shot, but realized when struck in the arm that because he had insider knowledge, it was possible that he was going to be killed also to ensure his silence.

At about the same time as the motel room meeting, a friend of my step-brother who owned a nightclub called "The Cellar," was getting the Secret Service drunk on the house.

In the late '60s, early '70s, I was in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. One of the American teachers at the Nangahar Taip Pohantoon (medical school) was Dr. Shaw, who had operated on Connally when JFK was shot. Why a noted cardiologist chose to go to a place with no modern equipment where he could not practice his specialty is inexplicable except that he really didn't want to be in the states any more and wanted to get as far away as possible.

With nothing more than those fragments to go on, I've always believed that it was a conspiracy--or more precisely, a bloody coup.

As for RFK, I know for certain that one was a conspiracy. Freddie Hoffman, someone I'd known years earlier in Mexico City, and who I've never seen in the states before or since, appeared out of nowhere, got me very stoned for no reason, and left me on a lawn with a bunch of people I didn't know. Remember the reference to a bunch of hippies on the lawn of the Ambassador Hotel? Probably some backup plan that they didn't need to use.

What is it they say about the '60s? If you were there, you don't remember, and if you remember, you weren't there.

I was there.

_________________
The ruling corporate party has two big arms and uses both to strangle progress.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Whoa, boy, does the plot thicken! I think the term "time to clean out the barn" has never been more true when we consider all of the old "insiders" that have resurfaced since Reagon and Bush came to power in the early 80s.

McClellan's book wasn't well received by the Johnson family, as you can imagine. Lots of outraged reactions came into the History Channel for presenting the documentary based on Blood, Money, and Power :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0205-06.htm

http://hnn.us/articles/4504.html

Barr wrote that the assassination of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. According to McClellan this resulted in a saving of over 100 million dollars to the American oil industry. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent.

Link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmcclellan.htm

Now, McClellan's fat-assed son is up there doing all he can to shore up other political fat cats, like TurdBlossom Karl Rove and his putrid liar of a boss George Bush. :evil:

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I don't really know much about it.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:39 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
mymarkx wrote:


With nothing more than those fragments to go on, I've always believed that it was a conspiracy--or more precisely, a bloody coup.

As for RFK, I know for certain that one was a conspiracy. Freddie Hoffman, someone I'd known years earlier in Mexico City, and who I've never seen in the states before or since, appeared out of nowhere, got me very stoned for no reason, and left me on a lawn with a bunch of people I didn't know. Remember the reference to a bunch of hippies on the lawn of the Ambassador Hotel? Probably some backup plan that they didn't need to use.

What is it they say about the '60s? If you were there, you don't remember, and if you remember, you weren't there.

I was there.


Yes, I've heard that saying. lol

Right, most likely backup plan or distraction of some sort?

A bloody coup .. for sure! JFK took on the establishment and it cost him his life. His Brother's life and from what I hear, his son's also. I guess he started looking into his fathers murder. I heard it was a jet on a very close fly-by which ripped his plane apart?

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:57 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Catherine wrote:
Whoa, boy, does the plot thicken! I think the term "time to clean out the barn" has never been more true when we consider all of the old "insiders" that have resurfaced since Reagon and Bush came to power in the early 80s. Catherine


Thanks Catherine, I'll check out the links.

Very true, the old barn should have been cleaned out some time ago!

The thing that many people don't understand, is that JFK paid with his life while trying to help all of us and protect our freedom and fix many bad things the establishment was doing or was planning to do. He may not have been everyone's favorite President, but we all owe him a debt a gratitude for trying. He said something one time about how they were going to take away the people's freedom and he had to let them know before leaving office. I forget the exact quote at the moment. When they got rid of JFK, there was no stopping them. The evil monster is with us today and stronger then ever. Sad!

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:27 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Another JFK site. An online book. Opium Lords ..

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/jfkpage.htm

I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:23 am 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
Sir-Irate wrote:
Another JFK site. An online book. Opium Lords ..

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/jfkpage.htm

I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.
--


I'm not sure if I'd consider Opium Lords a viable source.

Check out PART IV: REFLECTIONS, Chapter 13: Religion and Politics. It's an Anti-Semitic rant dressed up to look like legitimate history. Then he makes excuses for hatred for Jews. I'll have to admit, he had me fooled for a bit with his bullshit. The author has an axe to grind. This sealed the deal.

Quote:
I will set aside religious beliefs and focus on the ancient conflict between Jews and Christians by first analyzing passages from the Bible and the Talmud, then exploring the historical and political implications. It is not my intention to claim that Christianity is better than Judaism. To the contrary, I will show that many aspects of Christianity have strayed dramatically from the teachings of Jesus through the misguided interpretation of the self-appointed Apostle Paul, a Pharisee. Although Jesus preached to love our enemies, he made it abundantly clear that the Pharisees were in fact his enemies.

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:16 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Seamus wrote:


I'm not sure if I'd consider Opium Lords a viable source.

Check out PART IV: REFLECTIONS, Chapter 13: Religion and Politics. It's an Anti-Semitic rant dressed up to look like legitimate history. Then he makes excuses for hatred for Jews. I'll have to admit, he had me fooled for a bit with his bullshit. The author has an axe to grind. This sealed the deal.


Seamus wrote:
I will set aside religious beliefs and focus on the ancient conflict between Jews and Christians by first analyzing passages from the Bible and the Talmud, then exploring the historical and political implications. It is not my intention to claim that Christianity is better than To the contrary, I will show that many aspects of Christianity have strayed dramatically from the teachings of Jesus through the misguided interpretation of the self-appointed Apostle Paul, a Pharisee. Although Jesus preached to love our enemies, he made it abundantly clear that the Pharisees were in fact his enemies.


--

Going by the above, I would say he seems to be picking on both Christianity and Judaism. I'm guessing, but near as I can tell, he is talking about Jesus going up against the Sanhedrin. He refers to Paul as a "self-appointed Apostle Paul, a Pharisee" This is something that people haven't been able to agree on. Why? well, in short, it leads to much debate. Which in turn can lead to Paul being judged as good or evil. You can see what I mean at this link / site - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42471

Oh and about the Sanhedrin .. I believe it comes from (Christian-Bible) John: 8:1 - 8:59. Book of Axe and other books / sections. I could be wrong though?

Some links on the Sanhedrin.
http://www.woodford.redbridge.sch.uk/rs ... edrin.html
http://www.writers-against-war.org/publ ... heart.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

I suppose your wondering what I'm getting at Seamus? Well, I haven't read any of the book yet - Opium Lords, but I will look it over soon. I just wanted to point out something I've noticed. One person mentioned at a certain book site, that he had read over 200 books on the JFK assassination and none of them mentioned a "possible" Israeli connection. The way I understand it, "most" authors stray away from this. One who didn't was Michael Piper, with his book - "Final Judgment."

Is this what Opium Lords is doing? Or is it something different all together?

The Anti-Semitic thing, is a very touchy subject for a lot of people and they have stated in the past, that when open debate and legitimate criticism gets pulverized by those who call them anti-Semitic, then there can be no "real" decent, honest or legitimate criticism at all.

Your thoughts?

Best .. SI

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:39 pm 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
Quote:
The Anti-Semitic thing, is a very touchy subject for a lot of people and they have stated in the past, that when open debate and legitimate criticism gets pulverized by those who call them anti-Semitic, then there can be no "real" decent, honest or legitimate criticism at all.

Your thoughts?

Best .. SI



I understand the Anti-Semitic thing quite well. It's one thing to criticize Israeli Policy. It's another to publish this sort of bullshit.

Check further down the page and you come to this.

Quote:
Much to my surprise, after studying the Talmud and various historical sources, I have concluded that the stated offenses are promoted under Talmudic law.


He's a Talmudic scholar! Sure he is. Credentials please.

Quote:
The first offense—continual lying and treacherous behavior—is encouraged through the annual recitation of an ancient Jewish prayer, the Kol Nidre, which frees Jews from fulfilling vows taken throughout the ensuing year. The Kol Nidre is widely known among Jews because it is recited—sung to a melody—on the eve of Yom Kippur. Typically the song is sung as part of the temple’s service and Jews respond by making the following declaration which is written in the Talmud book of Nedarim:

Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null.

(Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)

The Kol Nidre is good for a year. Therefore it must be restated annually on the eve of Yom Kippur. Apologists for the Kol Nidre abound. The popular explanation is that it applies only to vows made to God. The rationale is that in the Middle Ages, Jews were forced to take Christian vows. The Kol Nidre was intended—we are told—to give oppressed Jews a way of voiding such vows made to God under duress. This explanation sounds good, but it does not match the Talmud’s rationale. The following is a full description of the Kol Nidre prayer as written in the Talmud book of Nedarim:


He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him, imposes a vow upon him, it is ‘a vow of incitement’ and hence invalid. And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, "Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null." HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID, PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW. (Caps in original.)


(Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)

Clearly, the practice of breaking vows is intended for vows made to humans, not to God. The Talmud specifically states that "He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him, imposes a vow upon him, it is ‘a vow of incitement’ and hence invalid." In other words, if two businessmen have lunch together—one is a Jew, one is a Christian—and the Christian gets the Jew to agree to a specific business deal (which is a vow), then the Jew is not bound to honor the terms of the business deal because it is a "vow of incitement" and therefore invalid. This explains why Jewish leaders in Israel rarely honor the terms of Arab-Israeli peace treaties, cease-fire truces, or border agreements.


This is absurd. The US thinks it's an exception, just as he claims Jews think of themselves as exceptions. The US was following this path long before the advent of Neo-Con driven foreign policy. By using his logical constructs I should then suppose everyone in American Government is Jewish. Why weren't we invited to Gee Dubya's Bar-Mitzvah? That's all part of the conspiracy, isn't it?

You'll find these same Talmudic quotes all over the internet as the examples of "Jewish evil". The least this guy could have done was been a little original and done REAL RESEARCH. Fundamentalist Bible Literalists are not qualified to make blanket assumptions about Talmudic Law. He's reading LITERALLY. The Talmud is a religious text. What's next? A literal reading of Christian exceptionalism in the Crusades? Once again by using his established construct I'll have to suppose he'll tell us that the Jews were behind that as well.

Quote:
The second offense—practicing witchcraft—receives tacit endorsement in the Talmud. The following passage clearly states that some forms of sorcery are entirely permitted, while others are exempt from punishment, yet forbidden, and others are punished by death. The following text is from the Talmud book of Sanhedrin:


Abaye said: The laws of sorcerers are like those of the Sabbath: certain actions are punished by stoning, some are exempt from punishment, yet forbidden, whilst others are entirely permitted. Thus: if one actually performs magic, he is stoned; if he merely creates an illusion, he is exempt, yet it is forbidden; whilst what is entirely permitted? — Such as was performed by R. Hanina and R. Oshaia, who spent every Sabbath eve in studying the Laws of Creation, by means of which they created a third-grown calf and ate it.


(Talmud, Sanhedrin 67b)


It's quite an interesting interpretation. He's quite a Talmudic scholar.

Here's the corker for me.

Quote:
The Night of Broken Glass remains highly controversial amongst historians. Jewish political forces would have us believe that the Nazis terrorized innocent Jews without cause. Western historians acknowledge that a young Jew did in fact shoot and kill a German diplomat in Paris, but the incident is surprisingly viewed as unrelated.

According to Freedman, The Night of Broken Glass was not an official implementation of "pogroms" against Jews, but rather the culmination of tensions between German Gentiles toward Jews after a five-year Jewish boycott—instigated by Samuel Untermyer—which hurt the German economy badly. In addition, German citizens felt betrayed by Jews over their defeat in World War I. When Herschel Grynszpan murdered German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, that was the last straw. Violent insurrections against Jews followed. Vom Rath’s cold blooded murder by a young Jew had set off anti-Jewish furor that was difficult to contain. Emotions came pouring out—so much so that Hitler told Hess to issue a directive telling Nazi officials not to commit "arson attacks on Jewish businesses….under any circumstances or conditions whatever."


That's straight out of right wing conspiracy theory. All that's missing there is Herschel's connection to Allan Greenspan and the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy.

The boy relies very little on primary sources. All he's written is a polemic. I am highly critical of all that Israel does. I can however tell when I'm reading anti-Semitic driven drivel. There's a difference between Anti-Semitic, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Israel. They're not the same.

The below quote comes straight out of the anti-Semitic apologists handbook.

Quote:
It is difficult to discuss Hitler and the Holocaust openly because so many opinions are based on raw emotion, not intellect. One of the most controversial topics discussed today among intellectuals is the total number of Jews that died in Nazi Germany. The official number is six million. But there appears to be a double-standard among historians as to how they tallied the number of dead in the Holocaust versus the numbers killed in other atrocities.
It is amazing to me that historians are unable to agree on the number of German and Japanese civilians murdered by the allied forces in the fire-bombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet virtually all mainstream historians agree with great certainty that six million Jews died in Nazi Germany over a seven year period (1938-45) under the most clandestine circumstances. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were there one day, gone the next. Determining the number dead in those three cities should be relatively uncomplicated, but for some reason, historians cannot agree. For a complex atrocity, everyone agrees; for simpler ones, everyone argues. This double-standard should raise red flags regarding the credibility of historians on this most controversial topic. Are historians being pressured to lie about the Holocaust? If so, why?

British historian David Irving has publicly stated his belief that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust was intentionally inflated for political reasons. According to Irving, if the number of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was only a million, then Hitler was no more of a war criminal than Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, or Stalin. In order to villainize Hitler for political purposes, the number of Jewish dead had to be exaggerated significantly. That is why the number six million is so important.


Asturia quotes Benjamin Freedman quite a bit. There are pages upon pages upon pages of Freedman quotes on the Internet... He's quite popular in anti-Semitic, John Birch Society, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist Sites.

http://100777.com/jewry/freedman

http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/engplbk.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benjamin.htm

http://nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4255

http://www.whitestruggle.net/BenFreedman.html

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/freedman.html

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-freedman.html

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/syn ... _satan.htm

All that's missing in Salvador Astucia's rant are the references to Blood Libel and the Protocols... Oops... He does mention the blood libel... And later he goes on and gets to the Protocols. It's pitiful. He follows the standard model. It's too damn predictable.

The boy's apparently a fundie and relies on the Gospel as history.

Quote:
The Plot to Kill Jesus

As previously stated, Jesus was extremely critical of the Pharisees which obviously upset them a great deal. In addition, he performed miracles which was viewed by the Pharisees as magic—a form of sorcery punishable by death under Jewish law. When the Pharisees learned that Jesus had reportedly raised Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin decided to take action. They plotted to kill him.


This is classic Christian history... Revisionist I might add. This reference has been discounted as an addition to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews by the Roman Church to "prove" the existence of Jesus. It's a blatant forgery.

Quote:
Josephus—a non-Christian source—described Jesus in his book, Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), in a manner remarkably similar to the Gospels. The following is an excerpt about Jesus

Quote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, p. 3)

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
The Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become "orthodox. He is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius also said that it was permissable for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God...(now who does that sound just like...wonder who in Bush's gang of Thugs in Suits is a historian of the Christian religion? :? )

Many scholars of this period think Eusebius was a forger.

There was no tribe of Christians during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century. Josephus does not mention anything else about Jesus...not his miracles, although he reports the antics of othe prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the gospol narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's huge works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of that tiny paragraph, which Seamus has quoted, and which Seamus correctly pointed out sounds too much like the gospols people read today.

However, according to Dan Barker in his excellent book Losing Faith in Faith, "Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudeus the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes."

Catherine

Sources: Dan Barker: Losing Faith in Faith

Robertson. A: Jesus: Myth or History?

Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:48 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Well, lots of stuff here. I don't really know where to start. :)

Seamus wrote:
I understand the Anti-Semitic thing quite well. It's one thing to criticize Israeli Policy.

It's another to publish this sort of bullshit.


I understand. I can see from what you've pointed out, what the book is about.I'll look it over a bit this evening. Mostly to see what is says about JFK and his Assassination itself.

Quote:
Much to my surprise, after studying the Talmud and various historical sources, I have concluded that the stated offenses are promoted under Talmudic law.


Seamus wrote:
He's a Talmudic scholar! Sure he is. Credentials please.


Credentials? .. Don't think he pointed to those did he? :lol:
I won't bother to re-quote all the Talmud stuff you quoted and make this to long. There is much debate when it comes to the Talmud and the Christian bible and etc.

Seamus wrote:
This is absurd. The US thinks it's an exception, just as he claims Jews think of themselves as exceptions. The US was following this path long before the advent of Neo-Con driven foreign policy. By using his logical constructs I should then suppose everyone in American Government is Jewish. Why weren't we invited to Gee Dubya's Bar-Mitzvah? That's all part of the conspiracy, isn't it?



What it is exactly, we may never know for sure. Fingers get pointed in every direction. One thing I think it is for sure, is mass misdirection. I remember reading a quote some place that said something like - "when it comes to reading material, people forget the CIA write books under various names." There seems to be one very important thing and that is - Keep them guessing. :wink:

Seamus wrote:
You'll find these same Talmudic quotes all over the internet as the examples of "Jewish evil". The least this guy could have done was been a little original and done REAL RESEARCH. Fundamentalist Bible Literalists are not qualified to make blanket assumptions about Talmudic Law. He's reading LITERALLY. The Talmud is a religious text. What's next? A literal reading of Christian exceptionalism in the Crusades? Once again by using his established construct I'll have to suppose he'll tell us that the Jews were behind that as well.


Again, I understand your point and I think it comes down to who you ask. Many people have different views on this subject. I won't bother to point them out in this JFK thread, but maybe another time in another topic / post.

Seamus wrote:
Here's the corker for me.


Quote:
The Night of Broken Glass remains highly controversial amongst historians. Jewish political forces would have us believe that the Nazis terrorized innocent Jews without cause. Western historians acknowledge that a young Jew did in fact shoot and kill a German diplomat in Paris, but the incident is surprisingly viewed as unrelated. According to Freedman, The Night of Broken Glass was not an official implementation of "pogroms" against Jews, but rather the culmination of tensions between German Gentiles toward Jews after a five-year Jewish boycott—instigated by Samuel Untermyer—which hurt the German economy badly. In addition, German citizens felt betrayed by Jews over their defeat in World War I. When Herschel Grynszpan murdered German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, that was the last straw. Violent insurrections against Jews followed. Vom Rath’s cold blooded murder by a young Jew had set off anti-Jewish furor that was difficult to contain. Emotions came pouring out—so much so that Hitler told Hess to issue a directive telling Nazi officials not to commit "arson attacks on Jewish businesses….under any circumstances or conditions whatever."


I remember reading about the boycott. Seems to me, it was pages / sections from old news papers from that era. It was very hard for a store to sell any German made products. As far as the rest of story goes, I haven't seen much about it.

Seamus wrote:
That's straight out of right wing conspiracy theory. All that's missing there is Herschel's connection to Allan Greenspan and the International Jewish Banking
Conspiracy.

The boy relies very little on primary sources. All he's written is a polemic. I am highly critical of all that Israel does. I can however tell when I'm reading anti-Semitic driven drivel. There's a difference between Anti-Semitic, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Israel. They're not the same. The below quote comes straight out of the anti-Semitic apologists handbook.



Quote:
It is difficult to discuss Hitler and the Holocaust openly because so many opinions are based on raw emotion, not intellect. One of the most controversial topics discussed today among intellectuals is the total number of Jews that died in Nazi Germany. The official number is six million. But there appears to be a double-standard among historians as to how they tallied the number of dead in the Holocaust versus the numbers killed in other atrocities. It is amazing to me that historians are unable to agree on the number of German and Japanese civilians murdered by the allied forces in the fire-bombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet virtually all mainstream historians agree with great certainty that six million Jews died in Nazi Germany over a seven year period (1938-45) under the most clandestine circumstances. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were there one day, gone the next. Determining the number dead in those three cities should be relatively uncomplicated, but for some reason, historians cannot agree. For a complex atrocity,
everyone agrees; for simpler ones, everyone argues. This double-standard should raise red flags regarding the credibility of historians on this most controversial topic. Are historians being pressured to lie about the Holocaust? If so, why?
British historian David Irving has publicly stated his belief that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust was intentionally inflated for political reasons. According to Irving, if the number of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was only a million, then Hitler was no more of a war criminal than Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, or Stalin. In order to villainize Hitler for political purposes, the number of Jewish dead had to be exaggerated significantly. That is why the number six million is so important.


Again, it depends on who you talk to / who you ask. As far as what really happened and what the honest 100% truth is, is anyone's guess. I used to be very defensive of the holocaust and a (one-hundred percent believer) in everything I was told about it. Now, I am more reserved and tolerant of what others think and choose to believe. I"ve done a lot of reading on the subject and I was shocked by some of the stuff I learned. :shock:

I remember talking with a man about a year ago, who said to me, when I spoke about how bad I felt for those who suffered through and died in the holocaust. He said "I can understand why you feel that way and I feel sorry for those who died too, but do you also feel sorry for the German people who have suffered for the last 60 years or so? Think how they feel after having their faces shoved in the muck for all these years. Do you know or have any idea what happened to them during and after the war? They haven't been treated like those who got everything handed to them on a silver platter since the ww2. I'm not going to say anymore about it, so do your own research."

Seamus wrote:
Asturia quotes Benjamin Freedman quite a bit. There are pages upon pages

upon pages of Freedman quotes on the Internet... He's quite popular in anti-Semitic, John

Birch Society, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist Sites.


Quote:


Seamus wrote:
All that's missing in Salvador Astucia's rant are the references to Blood Libel and the Protocols... Oops... He does mention the blood libel... And later he goes on and gets to the Protocols. It's pitiful. He follows the standard model. It's too damn predictable. The boy's apparently a fundie and relies on the Gospel as history.


Yes, but how many people do? The number would be staggering
I'm sure. Today, they are still trying to perfectly (somehow) combine Christianity with Judaism and tell everyone how it all come to be and all from Religious History. Then we will have a war and blow everyone up, just as the "Religious road map says to do." :roll:

Quote:
The Plot to Kill Jesus
As previously stated, Jesus was extremely critical of the Pharisees which obviously upset them a great deal. In addition, he performed miracles which was viewed by the Pharisees as magic—a form of sorcery punishable by death under Jewish law. When the Pharisees learned that Jesus had reportedly raised Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin decided to take action. They plotted to kill him.


Seamus wrote:
This is classic Christian history... Revisionist I might add. This reference has been discounted as an addition to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews by the Roman Church to "prove" the existence of Jesus. It's a blatant forgery.


Quote:
Josephus—a non-Christian source—described Jesus in his book, Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), in a manner remarkably similar to the Gospels. The following is an excerpt about Jesus


Quote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]
Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, p. 3)


My cousin and I have had these type of conversations many times. Meaning ... Semitic / Anti-Semitic, Zionist / Anti-Zionist and Israel / Anti-Israel rants. Or whatever one wants to call them. Cuz has said to people - "Well, who gave the Jews this power?" I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again so we understand my cousin (Cuz). He is a strong Pent-Christian. He believes God gave them the power and he often says to read Genesis: Chapters 1-50. He has also said "Who gave them the power over money?" I found a link that seems to tell the story. Jacob I LOVED - Esau I HATED -
http://www.meguiar.addr.com/Jacob_Esau.htm .. The author of the site tells it as he sees it though. My cousin seems to only differ on one thing and that is how Jesus is / was just a profit and nothing more. Cuz, calls that Nonsense. So, this leads to more rants on Judaism in Israel or more to the point, Judeo-Christianity. It gets wild when one looks at Dispensationalism and examines it Politically.

The guy should have stuck to the JFK assassination, instead of going off on some anti-Israel rant. Perhaps he should have focused more on the Mob, the CIA and Israeli-Mossad connections?

The Kol Nidre / Talmud and Mishnah.

There is an English Translation here, for those who wish
to check it out for themselves. Contents of the
Soncino / Babylonian Talmud
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html

I read about this before and way back when, even Thomas Jefferson tried to make sense of it. (Talmud) He stated how he figured he had made the right choice in choosing Christianity. If one looks at it from the "Christian standpoint," they should remember what Jesus said in John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." When Jesus died on the cross, He gave his blood and all of the human race, any one person or peoples, can only be sanctified by His blood. (Saved) In other words, everything changed after Christ came and died on the cross. Incase your wondering, No I'm not a Christian, that is just what I have been told. I'm sure that is what cuz would say. Oh and that we don't have any faith. :wink:

SI

--

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Site Claims JFK Murder Solved ! ...
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:11 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:58 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Planet Usury
Just to much to list here, but as far as "JFK's Murder" being solved as the site says, I don't know? I need to read the stuff and see who it points a finger at, and who it doesn't.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm

SI

_________________
You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group