Cato

You wrote before that the Mufti teamed up with Eichmann, now they became pals. The reality is, that Eichmann and the Mufti had met probably once. This is not an excuse for anything, but the unrelented inventing of stories has nothing to do with history or with political discussion. Or this crap of yours, Gave the Nazis all the Jews' possessions while selling them their crap exports as an exchange. Though I don't understand, what this is supposed to mean (whose crap exports, what is this at all?), but this rubbish has nothing to do with the emigration program Haavara: Jews could sell their property in Germany and take the money with them and/or take their household, equipment with them. Anyway, I was prepared to discuss issues but not character deficiency, which is radiating from your posts. Unfortunately this appears to be a common trait of the apologists of Zionist crimes: no lie is too crude if it can be used to deflect from the real subject.

You should have given a testimony on Eichmann's trial. You mean the right to self-defence in other people's land, while expelling them, robbing their properties, killing them? Anyway, I am pretty much fed up with this primitive garbage you are presenting. Pls make some better effort.

1. There is no word about denial of service there. 2. Such a claim is either pure lie or the dumb blathering of a layman - but who would have said such a nonsense to Kinsilla? Do you have the slightest idea, what denial of service means? Btw, your constant reference to potential lawsuits stinks like a Liberal fish.

You follow a strange "logic". The "kill percentages" were higher in Poland than in Germany, i.e. it is due to German actions. Well, reading for example So you admit your real role is as a Jew hater? I really have serious concerns about your mental stability; that's the reason I did not answer that post at all (I did not want to be the cause of a stroke). I hope you got the foam out of your mouth in the meantime. Does that apply to you as well? Or are you saying you're not an anti-Anti-Semite because you are partial to murderous Arabs? Bad news for you: Anti-Semite and "Jew hater" uttered by such as you are not negatives to me. I am comfortable in the group of Solzhenitsyn, Carter, Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, etc. Regarding being partial to murderous Arabs: about as much as I am to murderous Israelis.

Nonsense, but irrelevant anyway. 1. Up to 1941. 2. The hardship was not due to Germany. 3. Probably between 200,000 and 300,000. Jews like to reduce this number, for it is detrimental to the "six million" figure. 1. There was no goodwill there; it was a practical way of getting rid of the Jews. 2. The Kristallnacht was predated by Jewish "declarations of war" on Germany, which caused huge damage to Germany's economy. However, all that is irrelevant regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't you agree? (And I will not defend Nazi Germany's actions against Jews, for that was the gravest of Hitler's grave errors.) You just confirmed that you know nothing of this particular subject. Read up on it, it is really enlightening.

It is a sad fact of life, that Jews/Zionists (I am not able to distinguish for lack of reliable information) are trying to turn everything into some advantage in the Shoahbusiness, at least symbolically (this has nothing to do with the Holocaust but with business). Having to lie to achieve that was never an obstacle, as you are repeatedly demonstrating it. 1. The Mufti's role in Jews' killing by Germans had been nil. This has been confirmed in the Echmann trial (in Israel!). 2. The Mufti did not send "his men" anywhere, for there were none. He was recruiting Muslim volunteers in the Balkans, for the German armed forces; they took part for example in anti-partisan actions. However, it is true, that the Mufti made a proclamation in Radio Berlin to the Arams to kill the Jews wherever they find them. Notwithstanding any details, this subject does not give the very least justification for Jewes actions against Palestinians.

I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this relation not available to the wide public. I guess it was a mixe of symbolism (hitting the greatest power) and revenge for many actions of the USA during the decades, mainly the unconditional support of Israel's actions. Zionists are trying to suppress this aspect, but bin Laden stated personally: The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies

Fact is, using the Mufti in the Israel-Palestinian conflict issue is red herring. What the Mufti did was not different from what all others did, only that he was on the losing side. He wanted to prevent more Jews immigrating in Palestine and he did not care the least, what else they should or can do. The numbers are greatly inflated as usual, but that is really secondary in this issue. Anyway, here is something to the thema, only very shortly; I guess you have never heard of this. From 1933 to 1941 Germany actively supported the emigration of Jews from Germany to Palestine. The support was very relevant: the Jews could purchase the 1000 Pounds required to the immigration, they could take their belonging, even machines etc. with them, despite other laws making this impossible due to Germany's devise shortage. This is, what bugged the Mufti. Make a search for Haavara, but be careful: Jewish organizations are at least as much embarassed about that as the Palestinians about the Mufti.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption the land belongs to a government (governing authority). The land belongs to the people (legal private ownership plays no role here). However, this is irrelevant here. England and France had started the horse trading over the then Turk areas even before the Turks lost control of those areas, i.e. already when the French and the Brits were neither legally not physically in control of those areas. They concluded a secret treaty in 1916 (see "Sykes-Picot agreement"), in which Palestine was designated for "international administration". (Russia has been involved in those negotiations.) Anyway, the "right" of England and France to dispose over those areas was nil. The victorious power in 1919 declared those controls "mandates" (in contrast to "colonies"), which was meant that France and England are acting on behalf, in the interest of the people there. This happened to Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan, but the English made dirty dealings, which were neither co-ordinated with, not in the interest of the people of Palestinia. Let's refresh the memory: 1. the Balfour declaration was not about a Jewish state but about a Jewish home. Furthermore, the declaration contained nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine 2. the English and French declared, that the Arabs will have full independence, the complete and definite emancipation of the Arab peoples and the establishment of national government and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations, despite their secret dealings to the opposite, 3. in Paris, 1919, Lord Curson warned that trouble was coming and the Jews wanted to have a state, in which the Arab population would naturally become second rate citizens, but the deal went ahead. Balfour himself said so far as Palestine is concerned, the powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy they have not always intended to violate In other words, the English were continuously lying the Arabs in order to gain their support in the Great War. That is the background the conflict has to be seen with. 1. The UN did not have any rights to mandate over people's land. Palestinians and other Arab countries did not accept the right of the UN to make this resolution. 2. Not only the lack of legality but the proportion of the division of Palestine posed a great injustice: the Jewish state had been assigned a much larger part, though its population was much smaller than the envisioned Palestinian state. Btw, the UN did not mandate but partitioned Palestine. Mandate is an euphemism here.

Yes, but the "Indians" never had a chance to win against the Brits by violence. Rioting etc. contributed to the outcome, but not by beating the Brits.

An excellent demonstration of the core of many problems in Canada: blathering useless slogans without understanding their meaning. I am sick and tired of hearing "making sure we have the best people in place".

and build tree houses for people and feed them with leaves.

Shallow blathering. How should that be accomplished? The immigration system as it is now is designed to work that way - but it does not. Canadian bureaucrats are worthless leeches, probably the most incompetent ones in the developed world. Putting more resources in it means making it even more expensive, even more inefficient and an even bigger failure. Canada does not have any obligation to give every person on earth equal chance to immigrate. There is nothing wrong with making some basic decisions excluding those, who are less likely to adjust to the laws of this country, based simply on generic considerations.

Ignatieff had been teaching at Harvard. What is the basis for your claim?

Right. It requires over the average intelligence to get away, when pogroms occure more often. However, this had nothing to do with Holocaust. The Poles, Russians and Ukrainians had hated the Jews for centuries. I noted your educational deficiency in your former posts, but I forgot it. Sorry. I guess you are from the Sephardic branch. Did I write modern? Chrstians were not allowed to lend money for profit (interest) for centuries. Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together. Solzhenitsyn is Anti-Semite, of course, but he cites many Jewish sources.

Excellent. What I miss is how to accomplish that. How do you imagine to decide, if someone's personal attitudes and value sets are in accord with the expectations, whatever they may be? Though there is an easy way: just ask them. Like the crook, who convinced that stupid cow at the Immigration Board, that he is a reliable guy, despite his criminal past with multiple violent cases. God, when shooting the members of those criminal gangs (i.e. the activists at HRC, Immigration Board, etc.), women come first.

How many people do you think would immigrate to Canada if there were not limits? Only estimations, only regions.

No excuse for anyone attacking any other, and no excuse for the spineless swines, who find excuse for one side, no matter which side that is.

He knew, that violence against the Brits was not viable, because those were better at that. I do realize, that the brainwashed (i.e. the wast majority) has faith in such nonsense.

This "only" difference, as you note, is "conspicious", and if a stats exhibits such conspicious features, then one justifiedly questions the validity of the stats. It does not; however, it does influence the other side, the number of reported "rape/sexual assault" of white women: it allows for the inclusion of even thinking of being sexually assaulted or threatened with that.

IMO this is plain BS. The Ashkenazic Jews are excelling over the average on many areas (this is meant statistically, it does not have relevance to any individual, neither positively nor negatively), but they did not excell particularly good at surviving. Their "distant early warnings" are a myth. I don't profess to have any particular knowledge on this area, but my assumption is, that the over the average excelling of the Ashkenazic Jews is attributable primarily to the cultural/religious setting. Many Christian innovations to Judaism were nothing but obstacle in the individual development; Christentum put the followers in a handicapped position. Jews have not always been able to take advantage of the situation, though for example their still existent domination on the finance market is the consequence of the failure of the ideology created by the socialist named Jesus. This cultural/religious setting supports establishing moral values (this is present in Christentum as well), as well as intellectual development (i.e. studying). However, this did not help Jews, because they concentrated their intellectual efforts on religious studies; most Jews were as dumb as all peasants. I think it started only in the middle of the 1800's, that secular educational opportunities were opened to Jews as well, and Jews recognized the value of studying much better than most others (in a time, when members of the ruling class were convinced that having beed born in the right family is good enough for every aspect of life). From then on the special cultural/religious setting helped Jews excelling in secular areas; this advantage remains an important factor, particularly in the modern Western life, where intellectual excellence is becoming a cursing term.

I wonder who noticed, that this became a business on its own. Buy a video for $18, a magnetic bumber sticker for $6, the book The Obama Nation for $28, etc. It has always been profitable to fool the fool.

Gimme the tissue please, I can't choke back my tears. Thank you. Now, think of this: 1. I guess the Zionists could have a many times larger region, for example in the middle of Sahara. 2. If I were Christian, I would say they did not give birth to the Christian religions; just the opposite, they killed the Saviour. However, I am not, therefor I say you contributed to the rise of that nonsense, which is still robbing hundreds of millions their tiny brain. 3. Whatever, we (the other people of the earth) don't have the right to give Zionists something, what we don't possess. Already the League and later the UN committed the grave error to give away something, what was not theirs. 4. Let's talk clear text: the Zionists never planned to be satisfied with what the UN has stolen from the Palestinians. They had instigated several wars (not that the Arabs would have been totally innocent), they had provoked the Arabs and patrticularly the Palestinians with the aim of avoiding negotiations and fulfillment of obligations, in order to gain time and steal more and more from them. If you don't agree with this, we can conduct a discussion about that in a separate thread, assumed that you are prepared to stick to facts and accept black and white proofs.

Whatever, it is irrelevant. The issue was the Palestinian election in 2006. Come back if you have the proof of some serious problem with how the elections were conducted. Until then, your Those "elections" were more like armed combat with ballot boxes as props remains garbage, one in the stockpile of Zionist lies. In the meantime, if you are looking for examples of fraudelent elections, don't go too far. Look for Florida, look for rigged voting machines. The world's leading democracy offers more than enough examples. I doubt you understand it, for it is a local issue. One of the ministers in the BC NDP government, IIRC it was Harry Lali, mentioned something like he would have used a 2x4 (the opposition would have been at the receiving end). Later he explained reporters, that earlier, while he had been working on construction (?), he too had used a 2x4 to support his arguments, and that some participants sometimes had been bloody when leaving the meeting. This must have been about ten years ago, so some of the details may not be accurate. 1. I posted seems to be.... A lawyer should be able to distinguish that from an unconditional statement. 2. You posted enough material for a thorough study in a very short time.

Further options: Perhaps Canadian natives have less money for good lawyers (having a good lawyer is much more useful than abiding by the laws in the best juducial system of the world). Perhaps Canadian non-native criminals are smarter than their American counterparts in not letting themselves caught. Only one thing is sure: in Canada neither the judicial system, nor the praxis is particuarly harsh towards native criminals. Just the opposite: it is enough to have been in residential school or to have lived a troubled life in a native community to get off easily in the sentencing.