The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [17]  |  Archives [1] 
 
User: Guest

History   186 posts«« 1 - page 4 of 7

'Defamation': The Anti-Semism Industry & Poland


legend 3 | 671    
22 May 2011  #91
Yes pick the best "richest" Muslim country. Exclude all the others which are very poor compared to Western countries.
Excellent reasoning.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,666    
22 May 2011  #92
It's successful because it made the right choices and the others should follow it's example.
legend 3 | 671    
22 May 2011  #93
Has the USA or Britain ever attacked the UAE?
Its not a large country.Its population is less than 10 million im betting.

You are avoiding the point that the US and Britain are the reason that these guys hate you(them).

Watch it. Learn it. (The ending is debatable).

This has happened TIME AND TIME again.

You are also ignoring the fact that Americans murdered more innocents than the Muslims killed Americans.
Americans and British used them, their oil, their locations, etc.

Are you one of those lunatics who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
sascha 1 | 834    
22 May 2011  #94
See how much money they make every year. If you combine all the middle eastern countries GDPs you will get a figure close to the annual GDP in the US.

Point? The us budget deficit is up to now 14!!!!!! trillion dollars. Do you know how many zeros that is? Put you arrogance aside.

Seriously, you need to visit a developed, modern middle eastern country like UAE then come back and say we haven't paid the middle east billions of dollars for their oil.

That what you do when you buy sth or do you get your milk for free?

The middle east needs to take some responsibility for their governments and their lives.

They will do that quicker and better as long as nwo is not messing up.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
22 May 2011  #95
Can you imagine how different America would be without rich Jews?

I can imagine.. It can be like old Poland, or old Germany, etc - an ordinary country with no developed science, technology, industry, etc.

(it is the financial capital that drives these developments - not the monarchic nor the covboy capital.)
sascha 1 | 834    
22 May 2011  #96
It can be like old Poland, or old Germany

Elaborate.

not the monarchic

Wtf, since when are those guys financing anything. They just take tax...that what they have in capital is mostly untouched. ;)
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
22 May 2011  #97
You said it. This is why them (monarchies) don't contribute any development.
They don't take tax only, they also sit in front of money printing machines.

Jews play clean on their image. Do you think they are innocent? The Bolvshevik Revolution and up until WWII it was athiestic Jews who ran Russia. Do you know how much people died? Tens of Millions. Thats more than 6 million Jews. Do you know who died in WWII? 50+ million Christian Gentiles.

Those 50+ millions who died during WWII too were their faults of Jews? Eh..
Jewish intellectuals (Marx, etc) had introduced such a good system called socialist economy and they initiated Soviets.. But, Russians' nationalism arised quickly again and Russian nationalists controlled Soviets starting in 1930s..

Later, Abraham religion believers (religious Jews, Christians and Muslims) allied and they all called those Jewish intellectuals as atheists although they were no more power in Soviets anymore. Those elite Jews never mentioned about their beliefs, they just didn't say they were believers of one of these Abraham religions..

(btw, I often read the term zionism as if it is a bugaboo.. The term Zion-ism goes back to 9th century (a written source in 10-11th century by a Persian historican mentions this term, zionism). This 9th century was an era of Khazar State where Khagan, leader of state and his tribe was converted to Judaism.. It is normal as they'd like to visit the hill Zion in Jerusalem as hajj.. It is like visiting St Mariam Church in Ephesus by Catholics, Mecca by Muslims, etc.. Zionism is nothing else than a religious hajj term..
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #98
youtube.com/watch?v=UEKFbB-v86c
I find this guy to be one of the best. Raul Hilberg. He is considered as being the best read on The Holocaust and the development of AS.
panurg - | 2    
22 May 2011  #99
Talking media... Anyone heard about the News of the World hacking scandal?That paper hacked voicemails of about 3000 celebrities and politicians(including the one of prince William's). They were also making up stories, arranging arrests(!)with use of bribed policemen etc. All for the need of sensation and better sale. NOTW is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who nota bene is a Jew. The issue was revealed by Dispatches reporters. That is generally off topic but shows capabilities of paper medium.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
22 May 2011  #100
Rupert Murdoch, who nota bene is a Jew.

If you didn't believe he wasn't a Jew, you wouldn't post your this post, would you?

Sorry, but, parents of Robert Murdoch were protestant Christian Irish people. So, he is not a Jew.
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #101
I recommend Shoah. It lasts 10 hours and is in English, French, Polish, German and Yiddish. Great for many forum members. It shows many places, tells of many incidents and talks in scale terms. Well worth watching for those that want to see if their historical knowledge is up to scratch.
NomadatNet 1 | 457    
22 May 2011  #102
As a reply to my post above (re to Murdoch), someone sent me a link privately that implies Murdoch is a Jew:

jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-news-monopoly-murdoch-jew-part1.html

There are web pages claiming opposite. From my analysis and observations, Robert Murdoch is not a Jew at all. He was born in a CommonWealth country, Australia, a country where criminals were deported by Britain in the past and he was a son of protestant Irish parents. Showing him as Jew can be only a propagand of Britain (perhaps, due to some old fights between monarchy and him.)
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 8,336    
22 May 2011  #103
I recommend Shoah

I sat all these hours through it and don't find it recommendable....maybe it was news and all shock and awe but for today's people there is nothing new innit and it not even provoked emotions...

Or people today are more thick skinnied than earlier generations? Or just spoiled by tearjerker blockbusters ala Spielberg...I dunno..I was abit disappointed.
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #104
I completely disagree, BB. It's the very opposite of shock and awe. They actually describe quite calmly what are, in fact, highly horrific events. They don't seek to sensationalise in any way or form. Your emotions should naturally come from imagining the harrowing ordeals that Jews and Poles (and others) went through at the hands of the Nazis.

How can you take a hack at real life accounts?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 8,336    
22 May 2011  #105
I completely disagree, BB. It's the very opposite of shock and awe

That's what I said Seanie..hence my musings....it was surely something special back then as information about the scale of the massmurder and the "hows" and "whys" were still fairly unknown.

How can you take a hack at real life accounts?

I didn't take a a "hack" I only observed myself, compared that quite famous docu to other holocaust stuff and wondered abit, that's all!
Bzibzioh    
22 May 2011  #106
I recommend Shoah.

It's pure propaganda. Not historically accurate at all.

Well worth watching for those that want to see if their historical knowledge is up to scratch.

You just took yourself out of the competition.
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #107
40 years on from the end of WWII and things were unknown? That's rubbish! With age, their accounts likely get blurrier so I'd trust their accounts more in 1985 than now, BB.

Other accounts are predicated on dubious paperwork, agenda serving and profiteering. If they are your favoured sources then your definition of historical accuracy is vastly at odds with mine.

Bzib, you have the audacity to question those Poles who were eye witnesses? Many old Poles may complain like mad but I'd trust them implicitly when giving such accounts. I don't know you, Bzib. Were you there too? Maybe you have an account that you'd like to share with us?? Maybe you can prove them wrong!?

There's no competition here. Try going beyond Fox News and AIPAC conferences, Bzib.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,666    
22 May 2011  #108
That what you do when you buy sth or do you get your milk for free?

I go to the nicest store I can find :D
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 8,336    
22 May 2011  #109
40 years on from the end of WWII and things were unknown?

Well..at the time of "Shoa" alot of things were still unknown and Lanzmanns docu made mighty waves. Especially as that theme was still not such a media event back then and beaten to death by movies as it is now....
sascha 1 | 834    
22 May 2011  #110
There's no competition here. Try going beyond Fox News and AIPAC conferences

That's the goal here, right, though many even stretch those 'reliable' sources... ;)

It's pure propaganda. Not historically accurate at all.

Any proof of that? Btw, who is not using 'propaganda'? Already the word has a negative connection...

for today's people there is nothing new innit and it not even provoked emotions...

Saturated maybe?

With age, their accounts likely get blurrier so I'd trust their accounts more in 1985 than now

Of course.
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #111
BB, no offence but you haven't had the contact with older Poles like I have. They are highly descriptive with what they see and also highly trustworthy as people. They have no axes to grind and I have the strongest inclination that they are telling the truth. Is that what bothers you, BB? I never claim to know when it comes to history and nor should those that weren't there. However, the accuracy of their accounts is not in doubt IMHO.

Sascha, I told Bzibby above why she and BB don't follow so well. They are not historians with real accounts. Doubting what these Poles are saying is just insincere.
Bzibzioh    
22 May 2011  #112
Bzib, you have the audacity to question those Poles who were eye witnesses?

I have the audacity to question objectivity of this "documentary". I object also to manipulation of implying that Polish peasants living around those camps are equally responsible since they were somehow aware of what was going in there.

Try going beyond Fox News and AIPAC conferences, Bzib.

Try to get some back bone and go beyond conspiracy theories.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 8,336    
22 May 2011  #113
BB, no offence but you haven't had the contact with older Poles like I have. They are highly descriptive with what they see and also highly trustworthy as people. They have no axes to grind and I have the strongest inclination that they are telling the truth. Is that what bothers you, BB? I never claim to know when it comes to history and nor should those that weren't there. However, the accuracy of their accounts is not in doubt IMHO.

Seanie...you totally misunderstood me.
I mused more or less about the making of this doku and how different it is to todays movies and dokus.
I never doubted the content!

Oh well....

I have the audacity to question objectivity of this "documentary".

This doku isn't objective, it hasn't to be....it was very subjective on the side of the victims, understandable.
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #114
They are subjective accounts for goodness sake!! Now, maybe you were there and they weren't. Is that what you are telling me? They are real and genuine interviews. Can you give me ONE good reason why they'd lie??

They were FAR from being complicit. They had no choice. This isn't aiding and abetting/art and part we are talking about here. Many became aware, Bzib. The Poles are smart people when it comes to finding out 'co siÄ™ dzieje'.

I have no idea what a conspiracy theory is. I've never been one for labels, just for presenting clear cases that make officials uncomfortable.

BB, ok. Es tut mir leid!! I just like what I see in this documentary.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,666    
22 May 2011  #115
Yes pick the best "richest" Muslim country. Exclude all the others which are very poor compared to Western countries.
Excellent reasoning.

What you need to do is ask yourself why that country is doing so fabulously well and what other middle eastern countries need to be doing if they want to be like that one instead of blaming everyone else for your problems.
Bzibzioh    
22 May 2011  #116
They were FAR from being complicit. They had no choice.

That's my point. But this is not represented in this "documentary" at all. Lanzman kept asking those questions which were really statements, like "were those Jews rich?" What kind of "objective" question is that? And the other situation when one witness is telling him about a mother and a small child being killed. His question "was she Jewish?" and completely lost interest when told "No". He doesn't even make a pretense of being an impartial document of what happened.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 8,336    
22 May 2011  #117
Well..it was about the Jewish holocaust. Didn't his documentary coined the word "Shoa" in the first place?
It was in my understanding that this word was made known widely for the first time outside of Israel...
Seanus 15 | 19,742    
22 May 2011  #118
To be fair, Bzib, I think some drew that conclusion totally unfairly and it wasn't based on this documentary at all. It tends to be extreme Jewish sources that twist it to their own advantage and I find that disgusting. As shown in the documentary, many Poles risked being shot to get them water and felt horrible at their powerlessness. If the Nazis weren't watching over them then the Ukrainians were. They did what they could. I think the documentary does cover this point, Bzib.

I'd have to check back for that scene, Bzib. I think they were Jewish.
sascha 1 | 834    
22 May 2011  #119
Lanzman kept asking those questions which were really statements, like "were those Jews rich?" What kind of "objective" question is that?

It is a legitimate question? You don't like it? Why?

And the other situation when one witness is telling him about a mother and a small child being killed. His question "was she Jewish?" and completely lost interest when told "No".

It's a docu about jews, so why should he go further?

Yes pick the best "richest" Muslim country. Exclude all the others which are very poor compared to Western countries.

That kind of argumentation is called rationalisation. Common in many parts of the nwo. ;)

What you need to do is ask yourself why that country is doing so fabulously well and what other middle eastern countries need to be doing if they want to be like that one instead of blaming everyone else for your problems.

Because they did not choose the swampy back door. Simple as that.
Bzibzioh    
22 May 2011  #120
It is a legitimate question?

As I said: it's not a question, it's a statement.

You don't like it? Why?

You mean beyond perpetuating the stereotype?

It's a docu about jews, so why should he go further?

It's degrading to the victim: if she were Jewish there would be another 30 minutes of film about her. Unfortunately she was not, so screw her, she's nobody. Leaves you with this "I can't believe this moron" feeling.




Home / History / 'Defamation': The Anti-Semism Industry & Poland
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.