of course. there were arab and africans who sold sub-saharan africans to the whites on a massive level. How and why? Because it was profitable and because it depleted their rivals' camp. African slave traders are rarely mentioned in the history books though. Why, because historians like to be PC and look away from the fact that Africans were selling their own brothers into slavery. It's also because people don't like to take responsibility for the actions of their own kind.
of course. there were arab and africans who sold sub-saharan africans to the whites on a massive level. How and why? Because it was profitable and because it depleted their rivals' camp. African slave traders are rarely mentioned in the history books though. Why, because historians like to be PC and look away from the fact that Africans were selling their own brothers into slavery. It's also because people don't like to take responsibility for the actions of their own kind.
Pray tell us oh enlightened one how the Jews brought it on? To make the statement that in part the world looked the other way during the Nazis first years in power would be correct. To criticise the world for not standing up to Hitler would be another. The reason the Jews make the headline is that they were systematically reduced from status to none. If Germany had as many people of black or asian background living in their country they to would have been targeted in the same way (and the one's that did were). The Slav's had the same problem, they were treated no different, but the Soviets had control over their countries after the war.
That video does an excellent job of telling you how Jews provoked the holocaust, at least compared to what I read before. You only have to go to your local library and compare his references to the Historical. As for the denegration of Jews, you fail to mention that they are/were the most powerful minority in Europe. Many Jews, including the Rothschilds, had the power to determine the outcome of wars. Jews in early 20th century Europe are nothing like the African-Americans of America today.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
this guy is a quack. i don't support zionism, in so far as israelis building houses on top of palestinians, but this is absurd.
Did your mother ever have any kids that lived? :|
You are one sick fsck if you think ALL Jews were engaged in any conspriacy or instigation. You are a VERY sick fsck if you think ANYTHING done by any group warrants what Hitler's murderers did to an entire ethnic group. :|
Both of you should note what the mod said in the OP:
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
right. even hitler claimed the americans and british were controlled by the jews. nice to see how little things have changed. the fact that american jews were denied their request to bomb the railroads that facilitated the mass transfer of jews to the deathcamps by both england and america......that america actually turned back ships with jews... well facts are inconvenient to antisemites.
Few things I would like to address:
It so happens that we get holocaust deniers on ATOT or P&N now and then. They would bring up links, clips, pictorial "evidences" claiming that holocaust didn't happen.
I would like to know what are their true motives. What are they trying to achieve by denying an atrocity?
Further, I would like to point out to the holocaust deniers that they should read Hitler's quotes about Armenian genocide that was carried out by the Turks in 1914. Hitler's quote about not remembering and denial of Armenian genocide plays upon the fact how quicky peoople forget historical facts and as a result of their ignorance are kept in a visceral cycle of denial and lack of comprehension.
It doesn't matter whether 6 million or more or less jews were killed, what does matter that a full scale atrocity did take place. Sadly enough, we never account for the millions of those who died in Russian gulags. Isn't that a holocaust too? Or for you a holocaust must be in the form of gas chambers filled with zyklon B as it sublimes and then creamation being done to destroy the evidence?
You may be able to find some "evidence" that might indicate that Zionists had their hands behind the holocaust but that needs to presented a clearly systematic manner if it were to make sense. Few articles from protocols of zion, or some cut outs from a news paper, some links to conspiracy sites who never publish their sources won't do it, especially not for me.
I have watched videos similar to what you posted. But I do admit that I have near heard about the 1919 article by Mayor Glynn. Although it doesn't have a direct link to WW2 Holocaust but that's something for me to be deeply investigated. (which am doing right now).
As for denying atrocities, what if ten years from now some one would claim that the Bosnian genocide or the genocide in Rawanda didn' take place and its all a hoax.
If you were to claim that especially to me then I must grant myself a license to give you a humiliating kick in the crotch.
I do not in any sense condone the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis (especially the Zionist) but you will find many, many Jewish people who are against the policies of Israel itself.
So please stop reducing the international jewry to a lowest common denominator.
In order to keep sanity statistical at AT P&N, I would submit that we should have a separate section for discussing genocidial claims and counter claims.
It so happens that we get holocaust deniers on ATOT or P&N now and then. They would bring up links, clips, pictorial "evidences" claiming that holocaust didn't happen.
I would like to know what are their true motives. What are they trying to achieve by denying an atrocity?
Further, I would like to point out to the holocaust deniers that they should read Hitler's quotes about Armenian genocide that was carried out by the Turks in 1914. Hitler's quote about not remembering and denial of Armenian genocide plays upon the fact how quicky peoople forget historical facts and as a result of their ignorance are kept in a visceral cycle of denial and lack of comprehension.
It doesn't matter whether 6 million or more or less jews were killed, what does matter that a full scale atrocity did take place. Sadly enough, we never account for the millions of those who died in Russian gulags. Isn't that a holocaust too? Or for you a holocaust must be in the form of gas chambers filled with zyklon B as it sublimes and then creamation being done to destroy the evidence?
You may be able to find some "evidence" that might indicate that Zionists had their hands behind the holocaust but that needs to presented a clearly systematic manner if it were to make sense. Few articles from protocols of zion, or some cut outs from a news paper, some links to conspiracy sites who never publish their sources won't do it, especially not for me.
I have watched videos similar to what you posted. But I do admit that I have near heard about the 1919 article by Mayor Glynn. Although it doesn't have a direct link to WW2 Holocaust but that's something for me to be deeply investigated. (which am doing right now).
As for denying atrocities, what if ten years from now some one would claim that the Bosnian genocide or the genocide in Rawanda didn' take place and its all a hoax.
If you were to claim that especially to me then I must grant myself a license to give you a humiliating kick in the crotch.
I do not in any sense condone the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis (especially the Zionist) but you will find many, many Jewish people who are against the policies of Israel itself.
So please stop reducing the international jewry to a lowest common denominator.
In order to keep sanity statistical at AT P&N, I would submit that we should have a separate section for discussing genocidial claims and counter claims.
Idiot. Did you not read my post? I said Jewish instigators/leaders, not Jewish people. Try to understand before remarking.
Furthermore, if a leader (look up the definition of the word) does something, the reaction is going to have a more acute effect on the followers, not the leader. So, if there were jewish instigators/leaders that declared war on Germany, the Jews of Europe would pay a high price.
I think this is common knowledge because there are different layers of a group, with the leaders being the smallest and the followers being the largest. When the opponent reacts, the masses do not blame the leader for his decision-making. No, they blame the opponent and set their sight on its downfall.
That's how conflicts work out, my friend. Examples are littered throughout history
Idiot. Did you not read my post? I said, "You are a VERY sick fsck if you think ANYTHING done by any group warrants what Hitler's murderers did to an entire ethnic group. :|"
Nothing you've posted has changed that. :|
obviously, because they sold out other tribes.
this is all so absurb...but...
im not sure i agree with the banning. (obviously, no one asked me) and as much as i get offended by the sort of side-eyed half-assed anti-semitism...maybe a warning?
of course, i dont know if he has been warned and if this is a habit of his.
my great grandmother got through the holocaust, im sure she could handle a fool on a message board.
look at your first sentence, moron. And where did I say that hitler was justified in the killings?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
when you implied the jews instigated their own deaths and are somewhat responsible for what happened the fact is even before ww1 there were always antisemites who claimed the jews all powerful controllers of the world...always charges without merit. how do u think the whole scapegoat thing works anyways
you are obviously ignorant of history. antisemitism was always a problem in europe, let alone germany, most of the time like a mild cold, only sometimes breaking out like the plague and killing people. its during times of stress that the people always looked for a scapegoat, whether it be depressed economy or even the black plague. it was mostly religious for most of history, as the jews could always be blamed as the murders of jesus, and that all the decendents of these murderers were cursed etc. a good excuse. course by the time of ww1 the jews were integrating into society a little better and actually intermarrying with christians at ever greater rates. the antisemites were now having trouble identifying their enemy. then came twisted science and hygiene, which lead to racial hygiene, and that was solved there were rabidly antisemetic political groups as far back as 1870 in germany.. probably farther back, but thats the date i remember.
the fact is even before ww1 there were always antisemites who claimed the jews all powerful controllers of the world...always charges without merit. how do u think the whole scapegoat thing works anywaysyou are obviously ignorant of history. antisemitism was always a problem in europe, let alone germany, most of the time like a mild cold, only sometimes breaking out like the plague and killing people. its during times of stress that the people always looked for a scapegoat, whether it be depressed economy or even the black plague. it was mostly religious for most of history, as the jews could always be blamed as the murders of jesus, and that all the decendents of these murderers were cursed etc. a good excuse. course by the time of ww1 the jews were integrating into society a little better and actually intermarrying with christians at ever greater rates. the antisemites were now having trouble identifying their enemy. then came twisted science and hygiene, which lead to racial hygiene, and that was solved
there were rabidly antisemetic political groups as far back as 1870 in germany.. probably farther back, but thats the date i remember.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060593768/qid=1107678314
History on Trial : My Day in Court with David Irving
by Deborah E. Lipstadt
a good book on a famous holocaust denier. interesting.. and chilling.
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In a much-publicized case, David Irving, the author of numerous books about WWII, sued Emory University historian Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin, for libel. Lipstadt had called Irving a Holocaust denier in a book about the Holocaust denial movement, and Britain's libel laws put the burden of proof on her to show that the charge was true. Did that mean proving the Holocaust had happened? Was Lipstadt, as Irving claimed, trying to restrict his freedom of speech, or was he restraining hers? Was the courtroom the proper place to examine historical truth? The press hotly debated these issues, but as Lipstadt relates in this powerful account, she and her adept lawyers felt they simply had to discredit a man who had said that "no documents whatsoever show that a Holocaust had ever happened." In 2000, Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor, finding it "incontrovertible" that Irving was a Holocaust denier. The drama of the book lies in the courtroom confrontations between an evasive and self-contradictory Irving (serving as his own lawyer) and Lipstadt's strategically brilliant barrister, Richard Rampton, and the scholars who testified in her defense. Lipstadt herself is a reluctant heroine, a feisty, outspoken woman forced to remain silent (she did not testify in court) and let her lawyers speak for her. No one who cares about historical truth, freedom of speech or the Holocaust will avoid a sense of triumph from Gray's decision?or a sense of dismay that British libel laws allowed such intimidation by Irving of a historian and a publisher in the first place.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Product Description:
In 1993, Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University, published the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust denial movement. In this critically acclaimed account, Lipstadt called David Irving -- a prolific, respected, and well-known writer on World War II who had, over the years, made controversial statements about Hitler and the Jews -- one of the most dangerous spokespersons of the denial movement. A year later, when Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel in a London courtroom, the media spotlight fell on Deborah Lipstadt and, by extension, on the historiography of the Holocaust. Five years later, when David Irving lost his case after an intense ten-week trial, Lipstadt's resounding victory was proclaimed on front pages of newspapers worldwide. The implications of the trial, however, were far from over.
History on Trial is Deborah Lipstadt's personal, riveting chronicle of the legal battle with Irving, in which she went from a relatively quiet existence as a professor at an American university to being a defendant in a sensational libel case. This blow-by-blow account reveals how Lipstadt raised $1.5 million for her defense, which included a first-rate team of solicitors, historians, and experts, among them Anthony Julius, a literary scholar who is better known as the late Princess Diana's divorce lawyer. Lipstadt describes how in forced silence she endured Irving's relentless provocations, including his claims that more people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, that survivors tattooed numbers on their arms to make money, and that nonwhite people are a different "species." She also reveals how her lawyers gained access to Irving's personal papers, which exposed his association with neo-Nazi extremists in Germany, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and the National Alliance, which wants to transform America into an "Aryan society." In the course of the trial, Lipstadt's legal team stripped away Irving's mask of respectability through exposing the prejudice, extremism, and distortion of history that defined his work, even his once highly regarded account of the Dresden bombing.
Part history, part edge-of-your-seat courtroom drama, History on Trial goes beyond the historiography of World War II and the Holocaust to reveal the intricate way in which extremism and deliberate historical distortions gain widespread legitimacy and help generate hatred. An inspiring personal story of perseverance and unexpected limelight, here is the definitive account of the trial that tested the standards for historical and judicial truths, a trial that the Daily Telegraph of London proclaimed did "for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann trial did for earlier generations."
History on Trial : My Day in Court with David Irving
by Deborah E. Lipstadt
a good book on a famous holocaust denier. interesting.. and chilling.
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In a much-publicized case, David Irving, the author of numerous books about WWII, sued Emory University historian Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin, for libel. Lipstadt had called Irving a Holocaust denier in a book about the Holocaust denial movement, and Britain's libel laws put the burden of proof on her to show that the charge was true. Did that mean proving the Holocaust had happened? Was Lipstadt, as Irving claimed, trying to restrict his freedom of speech, or was he restraining hers? Was the courtroom the proper place to examine historical truth? The press hotly debated these issues, but as Lipstadt relates in this powerful account, she and her adept lawyers felt they simply had to discredit a man who had said that "no documents whatsoever show that a Holocaust had ever happened." In 2000, Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor, finding it "incontrovertible" that Irving was a Holocaust denier. The drama of the book lies in the courtroom confrontations between an evasive and self-contradictory Irving (serving as his own lawyer) and Lipstadt's strategically brilliant barrister, Richard Rampton, and the scholars who testified in her defense. Lipstadt herself is a reluctant heroine, a feisty, outspoken woman forced to remain silent (she did not testify in court) and let her lawyers speak for her. No one who cares about historical truth, freedom of speech or the Holocaust will avoid a sense of triumph from Gray's decision?or a sense of dismay that British libel laws allowed such intimidation by Irving of a historian and a publisher in the first place.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Product Description:
In 1993, Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University, published the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust denial movement. In this critically acclaimed account, Lipstadt called David Irving -- a prolific, respected, and well-known writer on World War II who had, over the years, made controversial statements about Hitler and the Jews -- one of the most dangerous spokespersons of the denial movement. A year later, when Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel in a London courtroom, the media spotlight fell on Deborah Lipstadt and, by extension, on the historiography of the Holocaust. Five years later, when David Irving lost his case after an intense ten-week trial, Lipstadt's resounding victory was proclaimed on front pages of newspapers worldwide. The implications of the trial, however, were far from over.
History on Trial is Deborah Lipstadt's personal, riveting chronicle of the legal battle with Irving, in which she went from a relatively quiet existence as a professor at an American university to being a defendant in a sensational libel case. This blow-by-blow account reveals how Lipstadt raised $1.5 million for her defense, which included a first-rate team of solicitors, historians, and experts, among them Anthony Julius, a literary scholar who is better known as the late Princess Diana's divorce lawyer. Lipstadt describes how in forced silence she endured Irving's relentless provocations, including his claims that more people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, that survivors tattooed numbers on their arms to make money, and that nonwhite people are a different "species." She also reveals how her lawyers gained access to Irving's personal papers, which exposed his association with neo-Nazi extremists in Germany, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and the National Alliance, which wants to transform America into an "Aryan society." In the course of the trial, Lipstadt's legal team stripped away Irving's mask of respectability through exposing the prejudice, extremism, and distortion of history that defined his work, even his once highly regarded account of the Dresden bombing.
Part history, part edge-of-your-seat courtroom drama, History on Trial goes beyond the historiography of World War II and the Holocaust to reveal the intricate way in which extremism and deliberate historical distortions gain widespread legitimacy and help generate hatred. An inspiring personal story of perseverance and unexpected limelight, here is the definitive account of the trial that tested the standards for historical and judicial truths, a trial that the Daily Telegraph of London proclaimed did "for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann trial did for earlier generations."
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
Answers to the 66 Questions
of Holocaust Deniers
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar11
and since dari used this one... i'll paste it here.
11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
The IHR says (original):
Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War on Germany."
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."
Nizkor replies:
"World media"? "Newspapers around the world"? One British newspaper is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott.
A transcript of the article is available. The next paragraphs after the headline were:
A strange and unfortunate sequel has emerged from the stories of German Jew-baiting.
The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany.
Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews." If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be: "The Jews are persecuting Germany."
The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. (See question 62 for information about various deniers' views on Hitler.)
In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if "the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure.
But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes? How many artillery shells?
The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery.
Besides, this is an internal contradiction. Their answer to question 54 states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist leadership." War is not a cordial relation. They should get their story straight.
of Holocaust Deniers
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar11
and since dari used this one... i'll paste it here.
11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
The IHR says (original):
Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War on Germany."
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."
Nizkor replies:
"World media"? "Newspapers around the world"? One British newspaper is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott.
A transcript of the article is available. The next paragraphs after the headline were:
A strange and unfortunate sequel has emerged from the stories of German Jew-baiting.
The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany.
Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews." If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be: "The Jews are persecuting Germany."
The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. (See question 62 for information about various deniers' views on Hitler.)
In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if "the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure.
But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes? How many artillery shells?
The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery.
Besides, this is an internal contradiction. Their answer to question 54 states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist leadership." War is not a cordial relation. They should get their story straight.
I really feel bad after reading this thread... It is amazing how many anti-semites are harboring this forum, and this also explains why there are so many anti-Israeli threads around here. If this is a mirror of the American society, then I am thankful that the Jews have Israel. This only demonstrates how important it is for the Jews to have their own country. At this rate, history might repeat itself in the form of another "Nazi Germany" - only that this time, Jews from all-around the world have a place dedicated to them. They will never have to face destruction again!
Dari -- You are obviously a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate, and all of your name calling doesn't change that.
Getting back to your stupidity in your first TWO sentences. The first was:
The answer is obvious. He's a fscking needle dick, pea-brained bigot with absolutely no comprehension of reality or history. You are doing a fine job of painting yourself as the same.
Moving on to your second sentence:
He is shedding NO light whatsoever. He is only spreading the lies bred of his moronic bigotry. The fact that there are Internet links and video or film footage doesn't make it any more true. It just shows how far some people will go to spread their blind hatred.
What drives you to voice such an incredibly immoral, unethical, and most importantly, false set of assertions is beyond me, but if you can't outgrow them, I suggest you would be more comfortable on another planet. Please go there. You're annoying the human beings. :|
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Why do people deny the holocaust? To what ends does it serve?
dababus also asked above...
Maybe it like people don't want to believe such horrible acts could be commited no matter the evidence. Sorta like if evidence hat Bush planned 9-11 was presented, many, regaurdless of amount or source, would go to thier grave claiming it's a fraud. Simply unable to believe it a leader in the civilized would would perpetrate such a thing..
dababus also asked above...
Maybe it like people don't want to believe such horrible acts could be commited no matter the evidence. Sorta like if evidence hat Bush planned 9-11 was presented, many, regaurdless of amount or source, would go to thier grave claiming it's a fraud. Simply unable to believe it a leader in the civilized would would perpetrate such a thing..
May I suggest that you edit that reply cause you're making no sense. Your answer is more emotional than rational.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Yes, you may suggest it. No, I won't edit it.
Then this dialogue is over. That is until you speak from a more rational POV. I'm sorry if you had family that were in the Holocaust but, as an intelligent person, you shouldn't try to respond to accusations or historical facts with anger. Prove to me that all the points in that video are false and I will promptly apologize.
MegaWorks
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 3,819
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Harvey
Yes, you may suggest it. No, I won't edit it.
Then this dialogue is over. That is until you speak from a more rational POV. I'm sorry if you had family that were in the Holocaust but, as an intelligent person, you shouldn't try to respond to accusations or historical facts with anger. Prove to me that all the points in that video are false and I will promptly apologize.
After reading all of this I'll say good point.
Good. I hate trying to talk about subjects like the holocaust with those who not only know nothing about it, but are intent on proving their ignorance to the world.
Considering your stupid denial of the horror of it, and your insane insistance on trying to justify any of it, I'd be tempted to say I'm sorry you didn't have any family in it. At least your parents would have given you a few good whacks up the side of the head for even suggesting there was any justification for it.
Earth to Dari! Earth to Dari! I don't have to prove jack sh8 to you. It happened in the mid-20th Century. The film is a discredited piece of propoganda by nazi apologists and those who would deny it happened.
I know your attention span only covers the last 30 nanoseconds, but here's a little history lesson. You really should pay attention to history, even if you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand big words or to grasp any of its implications.
Jews provoking the Holocaust eh? Of course they provoked it, by simply existing. Yes, the position of the Rothschilds was strong. So what? Those parties who quarreled with the state identified the Jews with the state. The Rothschilds were simply a convenient target for those in search of a bogeyman. Jews, some more, some less, professionally and intellectually contributed to European history and society, just like other ethnicities in 19th century Europe. End of story.
But the Nazis charged the Jews with the crime of life, and subsequently exterminated most of European Jewry. Nor did they discriminate. They sent all Jews to the camps: Ashkenazim and Sephardim, ultra-orthodox and secular, non-assimilated and assimilated, rich, poor, etc.
P!ss off.
Now I see, only the European Jews suffered during World War II and nobody else. I stand corrected!
Dari-1
Harvey-0 and that is how I see it.
Now to await the personal attacks and be labeled anti-semetic/racist or whatever floats your boat.
Dari-1
Harvey-0 and that is how I see it.
Now to await the personal attacks and be labeled anti-semetic/racist or whatever floats your boat.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter