Pan Kazimierz
5 Jul 2009
History / Polish hatred towards Jews... [1290]
And well into her career, she not only fully rejected the Catholic faith but also any religion, very aggressively pronounced it, and carried out such convictions by murdering Catholics. That doesn't make her Catholic, it makes her an extremely assertive atheist. Your argument hinges on 'Once a Catholic, always a Catholic', as if it were a permanent decision that was impossible to undo. Except that Catholocism is a faith, not an ethnicity. It can be acquired and discarded at whim, and in her case, clearly was. That should be extremely obvious, which leads me to believe that you're being very deliberate in your twisting and skewed misrepresentation of the facts here, as opposed to simply being ignorant of the truth (which was laid out before your very eyes here multiple times) - have you no shame, sir? If you must twist and rearrange the facts to make a point, it's probably not one worth making.
Asking for someone else's property back, actually. Someone that no longer exists.
What are you, Giles Coren? I've only been here two days and already seen you bring this up multiple times. Does the mention of the word 'Kielce' suddenly cause you to lose all understanding of written language, thus explaining (beyond just plain extreme thickheadedness) why you don't get it, are you a fool, a liar, or ar you just not willing to accept the by now widely-known fact that these events were staged by Soviets? You seem to have a very deep-seated desire to want to believe the Polish are to blame.
Why should totally unrelated Jews, with nothing in common with anyone related to the event aside from a common religion, profit from it? And what, exactly, is the tax status of world Zionist organizations in Poland, oh all-seeing and logical Harry, hmm? Your argument fails there, I think. So, back to square one: what right do world Jewish organizations have to Polish 'reparations' that the Vatican doesn't, beyond that they can play a victim card powerful enough to make world leaders walk on eggshells when they start making demands they should logically never see fulfilled?
I assume that by 'thrown out', you mean 'provided hard military escort and financial aid to Jews abandoning the country in favor of emigration to Israel, despite their obvious lack of obligation to do any such thing' (a strange use of language, that)? Or are you referring to Stalin's deportations, which are completely unrelated to any decisions of the modern Polish government in any way whatsoever, in which case this is merely a shadow argument intended to help your thesis (already exposed as having been backed by mere shadow-and-dust logic), appear logically sound? (I understand that you're an English teacher, which could explain the love for forming intricate webs of B.S. to create the illusion of invincible and unquestionable truth - that's what literature nuts do for fun with their spare time, isn't it?)
You're right; there he is saying quite clearly, and with little room for interpretation, that he proudly belongs to the Jewish people.
She had a Jewish father. That does not make her Jewish. A Jew's faith is passed down from the mother's side. And then there's the bit you always fail to quote from that page "she asked for baptism and converted to the Catholic faith." That does make her a Catholic.
And well into her career, she not only fully rejected the Catholic faith but also any religion, very aggressively pronounced it, and carried out such convictions by murdering Catholics. That doesn't make her Catholic, it makes her an extremely assertive atheist. Your argument hinges on 'Once a Catholic, always a Catholic', as if it were a permanent decision that was impossible to undo. Except that Catholocism is a faith, not an ethnicity. It can be acquired and discarded at whim, and in her case, clearly was. That should be extremely obvious, which leads me to believe that you're being very deliberate in your twisting and skewed misrepresentation of the facts here, as opposed to simply being ignorant of the truth (which was laid out before your very eyes here multiple times) - have you no shame, sir? If you must twist and rearrange the facts to make a point, it's probably not one worth making.
Yes, those damn upity Jews! Asking for their property back!
Asking for someone else's property back, actually. Someone that no longer exists.
You should get out onto the streets and remind them of the lessons taught to them in Krakow, Lublin and Kielce after the war!
What are you, Giles Coren? I've only been here two days and already seen you bring this up multiple times. Does the mention of the word 'Kielce' suddenly cause you to lose all understanding of written language, thus explaining (beyond just plain extreme thickheadedness) why you don't get it, are you a fool, a liar, or ar you just not willing to accept the by now widely-known fact that these events were staged by Soviets? You seem to have a very deep-seated desire to want to believe the Polish are to blame.
Poland isn't responsible for the Holocaust. But why should Poland profit from the Holocaust? Maybe the Vatican should claim some money. Then we can start discussing their tax status in Poland.
Why should totally unrelated Jews, with nothing in common with anyone related to the event aside from a common religion, profit from it? And what, exactly, is the tax status of world Zionist organizations in Poland, oh all-seeing and logical Harry, hmm? Your argument fails there, I think. So, back to square one: what right do world Jewish organizations have to Polish 'reparations' that the Vatican doesn't, beyond that they can play a victim card powerful enough to make world leaders walk on eggshells when they start making demands they should logically never see fulfilled?
It certainly continues to profit from the holocaust, despite having thrown out almost all of the Polish Jews who survived the holocaust.
I assume that by 'thrown out', you mean 'provided hard military escort and financial aid to Jews abandoning the country in favor of emigration to Israel, despite their obvious lack of obligation to do any such thing' (a strange use of language, that)? Or are you referring to Stalin's deportations, which are completely unrelated to any decisions of the modern Polish government in any way whatsoever, in which case this is merely a shadow argument intended to help your thesis (already exposed as having been backed by mere shadow-and-dust logic), appear logically sound? (I understand that you're an English teacher, which could explain the love for forming intricate webs of B.S. to create the illusion of invincible and unquestionable truth - that's what literature nuts do for fun with their spare time, isn't it?)
So there he is saying that he isn't Jewish.
You're right; there he is saying quite clearly, and with little room for interpretation, that he proudly belongs to the Jewish people.