Silly swastika

gerald_giampa's picture

The opposition does not exist, and the coalition, with Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there

John Hudson's picture

They did have the major East-West crossings for a short while...

Yes, it was to this I referred. My point was that they controlled that area immediately adjacent to the camps (three sides of Sabra, the fourth being held by the Phalangists). And yes, the Israelis explicitly gave the okay for the Phalangists to go into the camps, but it is not at all evident that they did so with the intent that the Phalangists would massacre the inhabitants, including women and children. This simply is not established. What the Kahan Commission found was that the Israeli politicians, military and intelligence commanders had not factored the likelihood of the massacre into their planning, which was both stupid and negligent of them considering the long and terrible history of tit-for-tat factional massacres during the Lebanese civil war. Of course, the question of whether there was more than negligence involved would only be answered to general satisfaction in a trial, which is why I say this should have been done. I think, having read the long report, that the Kahan Commission seems to have done a very thorough job, and the importance of the testimony of medical personnel from the Gaza Hospital -- witnesses not sympathetic to Israel -- should not be overlooked. However, without a trial by an unimpeachably disinterested body, there are always going to be suggestions that more than negligence was involved. Which is why I think such a trial should have taken place. Of course, there will always be some people who will not accept any explanation, however well established by evidence, except the one that they have decided in their own minds must be true.

hrant's picture

You underestimate the intelligence capabilites of the Israeli military, and the Kahan commission could never hope to uncover and report on Israel's (constantly active) espionnage networks. The Mossad is responsible for a whole lotta more crap than you seem to think, and certainly not confined to "allowing" things to happen.

If Israel knew that half a dozen Palestinian fighters had taken over my father's office, within days targeting the office with precision munitions from the Summerland area (many kilometers away), they most certainly knew what was going to happen in the camps way before the Maronite footsoldiers did. Israeli military intelligence has always been highly vaunted in Lebanon - not due to some supersticious mystique, but through its effects on the ground - it commands respect even from Israel's staunchest enemies. And the US is now learning some ropes from them.

The Israeli army had control over the camps, plain and simple - remember why (well, the main reason) they invaded Lebanon in the first place. Let's just say that the Palestinian fighters trapped in the camps (right place, wrong time) didn't have any "in and out priviledges" at all...

And of course it was totally in Israel's interest to allow the pogrom to be carried out, because it would pit the Lebanese against each other (even more), and kill some Palestinians as a fringe benefit. It was a win-win situation for Israel, with near-zero risk: people like Sharon knew well that in the future the democratic vote could be twisted to favor a hard-core criminal pretty easily. All you need is people who are afraid, and a great way to keep people afraid is to never allow individual Jews to really forgive the Holocaust, always usurping the swastika as a reminder, or creating a huge media frenzy every goddam time there's a story about siblings reunited after losing contact during the Holocaust. This Jewish obsession with persecution is a vicious cycle, it's what has turned them from mostly victims to mostly oppressors, thus creating real animosity against them the world over, when it was actually dying down before. When the average Jew reclaims his voice and beats down the "we the Chosen People against the world" warmongers and fundamentalists, then Israel will be accepted as a nation.

hhp

gerald_giampa's picture

"The Sabra and Shatilla killings was a 'horrendous massacre' that showed humanity had sunk to an excess of barbarism."

--Pope John Paul II (New York Times, September 27, 1982)}
-------------

The case against Sharon.
http://www.geocities.com/indictsharon/case.html

Home page.
http://www.geocities.com/indictsharon/index.html

Does this remind you of anything?

At 1 P.M. Friday, a few hours after these men had been gathered, Flint Pederson, a reporter for Danish television, stood at the southern gate of Shatila and watched as a cattle truck was loaded with women and children from the camp by Christian militiamen, two of whom were very agitated and were firing into the ground. Three Lebanese Army soldiers who happened onto the scene in a jeep were arrested by the Christian militiamen, he said. What happened to these women and children is not known. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: New York Times

SILENCE WEARS A SWASTIKA


gerald_giampa's picture

At roughly 4 P.M., Gunnar Flakstadt, a Norwegian diplomat, came to the camp to check reports of fighting and told reporters he saw a bulldozer with its scoop full of bodies being taken off. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: New York Times

RICHARD GOLDSTONE a South African judge who was chief prosecutor of the U.N. war crime tribunals from 1994 to 1996, says in the documentary that, in general, military commanders are "more responsible" for civilian deaths than are the people who pull the trigger."

RICHARD FALK A professor of international law at Princeton who was vice chairman of an international commission that investigated Israel's invasion of Lebanon, told the BBC, "There is no question in my mind that [Sharon] is indictable for the kind of knowledge that he either had or should have had."

GAZA TERRORIST GETS INTERVIEWED.
http://www.littleredbutton.com/gaza/hejazi.html
Imagine fighting a monster like that?

Israeli soldiers are very brave. America should send more arms?

John Hudson's picture

As I said: Sharon should be put on trial. You have no argument from me on that. I think it is necessary, to try to obtain the truth -- even if it turns out to be much the same as the Kahan Commission conclusion -- and to satisfy as many people as possible that justice has been done. In any case, having been forced to resign as Defence Minister in such circumstances -- even if only guilty of negligent dereliction of his duty --, he should not have been allowed to run for public office again.

John Hudson's picture

This Jewish obsession with persecution is a vicious cycle, it's what has turned them from mostly victims to mostly oppressors, thus creating real animosity against them the world over, when it was actually dying down before.

That doesn't make any sense. As they were 'mostly victims', they have an understandable 'obsession' with persecution. Many of the Armenians I've met have the same obsession, and it is perfectly understandable. Historically, antisemitism comes and goes in waves, and I think you would need to be incredibly shortsighted and amnesiac to think that a lull in antisemitic sentiment was likely to last for very long. The idea that the Jews create antisemitism is one of the sickest antisemitic inversions of all. Given the immense monstrosity of the holocaust, I'm saddened that it has only taken three generations for people like you to start saying that it should be forgiven and, apparently, forgotten, or at least played down.

I've said this before and will say it again: it is possible to oppose Israel's policies and actions toward the Palestinians, to sympathise with the plight of the Palestinian people and to seek to help them, while never once needing to discriminate against Jews (many of whom also oppose those policies and share your sympathy for the Palestinians) or ascribe racially, ethnically or religiously determined characteristics to a group of people, blaming them en masse for the problems of this world. Antisemitism is a choice of the antisemite. You can always say no to hatred.

Hrant, earlier in this thread you said the oppressed, not the oppressors, say when 'enough is enough'. I think you're right. But there is always the risk that, when the oppressed rise up and fight back, they will in turn oppress others. The Jews said 'enough is enough' on April 19, 1943, and their determination against the invading Arab armies in 1948 and throughout the long conflict in the Middle East is an expression of that 'enough is enough'. I'm not saying this to excuse anything that the Israeli government and the IDF have done to Palestinians in the occupied territories, but I think it is important for everyone who cares about the outcome of this conflict to understand why Israel has become the country that it has. Without understanding, there can be no lasting peace: understanding is the beginning of sympathy, from which sacrifice and compromise may flow. The Israeli leadership and their army have been brutalised by their experience, which is a tragedy for them as well as for the Palestinians. Some years ago, Ariel Sharon stated publicly that he would do anything, commit any crime, to defend the state of Israel against its enemies. That is a despicable, extemely dangerous position to take, but I think even that needs to be understood -- never excused, but understood. Indeed, the more horrible something is, the more desperately we need to try to understand it. To know why and how Israel became brutalised -- how that 'enough is enough' in the Warsaw Ghetto translates into tanks rolling into Nablus, armed settlers staking a claim on Palestinian land, and the theft of water from the occupied territories -- is important: it suggestes the possibility of de-brutalisation.

Last year, Archimandrite Emile Shoufani of the Greek-Melkite church in Galilee led a group of Israeli Arabs -- Moslems and Christians -- along with a group of Arabs from France, on a visit to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps. The initiative came in for some heavy criticism from some Palestinians commentators, some of whom basically said that the Jews didn't deserve to be understood, and there were legitimate concerns about how the visit could be used by Israeli propaganda*, but I think the itent of the visit is one of the few positive signs to come out the Middle East in the past couple of years. As Fr Shoufani -- an ethnic Palestinian -- explained" 'It is a trip to get to know a place in which the Jewish people lived a reality that has not been understood, and on which many of their reactions today depend.' Fr Shoufani is the recipient of the 2003 UNESCO 'Education for peace' prize.


* The intent of the visit and criticisms of it are well-summarised in this MEMRI report.

hrant's picture

> Jews create antisemitism

Of course they don't. But more important than who's to blame is the pragmatic question of how to get out of this mess. If you want people not to hate you, treat them fairly. Just because you weren't treated fairly at one time doesn't make it a good idea to turn the tables now. During WWII the Jews were powerless. They made it a point to harness the alliance (putting it mildy here...) of the superpower that was most likely to last longer, and now they've become extremely powerful: they don't need to hold on to Palestine to stay secure and prosperous within their own broders, but they choose this heartless occupation instead. Not because they're imperliasts, but simply because they're deluded with persecution syndrome. With power comes responsability - not the priviledge to beat down those already on the ground.

BTW, the difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide is huge: we didn't just lose lives, we lost our ancestral land. Furthermore, no reparations -not even an admission- has been made of the latter. Even so, Armenians seem much more willing to live as part of the World. Why isn't there rampant anti-Armenian sentiment around the world? Simple: we're oppressed more than we're oppressing. And instead of asking me why I'm playing down the Holocaust (which I'm not - I'm simply saying that the way out of this is for Jews to stop thinking that it's "them or everybody else"), ask why the Jewish lobby in the US plays down the Armenian Genocide.

> blaming them en masse

Like I've said, to me people are responsible for more than their own actions. They are also responsible for the actions of people they want to protect (ie their race). It's sort of like the Chinese saying that you're responsible for the actions of a person who's life you've saved. Again, it's not a matter of blame, but one of compromise: if a given Jew wants Israel to thrive, he must make an effort to beat back the warmongers and fundamentailsts. Jews are all tied together deep down, just like Armenian and or any other people - don't overestimate the importance of the individual (that's in fact a classic Western flaw) . Behavior is contagious, especially among people who feel close.

I'm all for understanding, but I'm also for correcting problems by encouraging compromise. This "God gave *us* this land" business for example has got to go. Fundamentalists on both sides (not to mention within the US) have to be stopped.

hhp

John Hudson's picture

Hrant, the Armenian genocide was all about land. It was not motivated by a desire to destroy completely all Armenians everywhere in the world, it was motivated by the desire of the Turks for your ancestral land. The Turks couldn't have cared less about Armenians living in other countries. The Holocaust, on the other hand, was the result of antisemitism and Hitler's desire to wipe out all Jews everywhere. You're right, the two genocides are quite different, but not for the reasons that you put forward.

On the one hand you say you acknowledge that Jews do not create antisemitism, and then in the next paragraph you ask 'Why isn't there rampant anti-Armenian sentiment around the world?', as if the actions of either group of people might produce such hatred. There is no rampant anti-Armenian sentiment around the world because there never has been. There is rampant antisemitic sentiment around the world because there has been, continuously, for almost two thousand years. This is an historical phenomenon that has very little to do with that happens within a single generation or in a single region.

You say that antisemitism today is a reaction to Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. I say that antisemitism today is simply the latest expression of a hatred that really doesn't care what Jews actually do. As has been pointed out many times, the Jews in Germany were the most culturally, socially and economically assimilated in the world, and yet they were targeted. Antisemites don't hate Jews because they are rich, or because they are poor, or because they are powerful, or because they are powerless: they hate them because they are Jewish.


...[Jews] don't need to hold on to Palestine to stay secure and prosperous within their own broders...

Most Israelis are not convinced of that, and given the history of Arab aggression, and the ongoing financial and military support of organisations like Hamas that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, I don't think it is difficult to understand why they are not convinced. I sincerely hope that you are right, and that this is a possibility that the Israelis may become convinced of. But surely you can understand, given the history, why they consider their borders to be very insecure. Tragically, if the Palestinians and other Arabs really do want Israel to exist 'secure and prosperous' within its borders, sending suicide bombers into Israel is just about the worst possible thing to be doing. How are you going to convince people that they are safe and can trust you if you keep trying to kill them? So far, the most obvious direct result of the second intifada is that the Israelis elected Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister: people don't elect a ruthless warrior as their leader if they feel safe.

John Hudson's picture

I'm all for understanding, but I'm also for correcting problems by encouraging compromise. This "God gave *us* this land" business for example has got to go. Fundamentalists on both sides (not to mention within the US) have to be stopped.

For once we are in complete agreement. Maybe an area of the world -- perhaps in Antarctica -- should be set aside both as a perpetual homeland for militant Israeli settlers and as an Islamic Waqf consecrated for members of Hamas until Judgement Day. The hateful and murderous of the world would be given a right of return to this place, while people who just want to live in peace and trade with each other could settle in Israel and Palestine, the borders of which would be like the border between France and Germany.

hrant's picture

The version of the Armenian Genocide you seem to know is one conveniently tailored to make the Holocaust seem worse. You know, I wouldn't even mind that, except in their all-permeating "us against the world" attitude, the Jewish establishment works very hard to prevent proper recognition of the Genocide.

If you don't want to be hated:
1) Kill everybody else.
OR
2) Treat others well.
The rest is escapist finger-pointing.

> they consider their borders to be very insecure.

Hogwash. The Arabs have zero hope of annihilating Israel, and everbody knows it. The only way to harm Israel is through terrorism, and the key ingredient in terrorism is a highly oppressed group of people. The only way to greatly reduce (but never totally eliminate) terrorism is to remove the motivation. If Israel would allow the average Palestinian to be reasonably happy, terrorism would wilt. You have to give people something to lose, otherwise they'll blow themselves up in your arms.

We live on this planet together - there's no way any group of people can be very happy living next to another group whom they make miserable. This is not a long, hard slog: you can't crush humanity's desire for justice - it will gnaw at you, gnaw at you, until you come to your senses.

hhp

gerald_giampa's picture

John,

Forgive me, I am uncomfortable with your 'mantra'.

'sending suicide bombers into Israel'
This is propaganda fed to the public like dogfood. I am more fussy about what I eat.
Perhaps we should discuss, Jewish propaganda, and Jewish censorship. You just know how I feel about censorship.
-------------

These are 'freedom fighters on revenge attacks.'

Spillage of violence into Israel is far less than surprising. When Jewish people have chosen a path of rape, child murder and serial killings why do you express so much indignation towards their victims.

If you are a butcher blood gets spilt, it is part of the business. If the 'animal' is not yet dead don't be surprised, some of that blood may be your own.










gerald_giampa's picture

Also I am uncomfortable with this propaganda. The word

intifada

Recent polls show that over 97% of Americans believe intifada to mean holy war. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY.

Intifada

An uprising among Palestinian Arabs of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, beginning in late 1987 and continuing sporadically into the early 1990s, in protest against continued Israeli occupation of these territories.

I agree, intifada is correct. However it is misleading in the eyes almost all Americans.

It plays like this.

"SODOM Hussein". COLIN POWELL.}

John Hudson's picture

...the key ingredient in terrorism is a highly oppressed group of people.

That is a major ingredient in the terrorism in Israel and the occupied territories. I don't think you can say it is the key ingredient of terrorism in general, which may also stem from fanaticism, fundamentalism, tribalism, and other phenomena of human existence. Among other things, terrorism is often employed as a strategy of proxy warfare. Last I checked, the Saudi royal family was not a highly oppressed group of people, but there is evidence of their financial and material support for terrorist organisations.

Those terminological debates aside, I broadly agree with you. The key to peace is to treat people well; the guarantee of peace is mutual prosperity. I think this has to come from sympathy which, as I wrote above, begins with understanding. This has to come from both sides and, of course, there are very many people on both sides who seek this, despite the policies of their leaders and those who claim to protect them.


Gerald, whether you use the term 'suicide bomber' (which is a description of their tactic) or 'freedom fighter' (which may be a description of their motivation (if they're from Hamas, I prefer to accept their own explanation of their motivation: 'obliteration' of Israel)), what seems clear is that the strategy is doing the Palestinian people no good at all. As I noted above, the only obvious result to date is the election of Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister of Israel.

By the way, you never responded to my suggestion, above, that the Palestinians might try Gandhian non-violent resistance, which you were the first to mention.

Recent polls show that over 97% of Americans believe intifada to mean holy war.

What polls? This is sadly typical, and I'll bear it in mind when I use this word in future. Rest assured that I know what the word means, and do not use it with propandistic intent.

Mind you, a bunch of Middle East Studies academics have been running around since the WTC attack trying to convince people that jihad does not mean holy war, so people are understandably confused.

gerald_giampa's picture

Jihad does mean holy war.
Intifada does not.

I agree the confusion is pathetic

Your question?
that the Palestinians might try Gandhian non-violent resistance.

It brings question to the questioner.

I wonder why you have not asked this? that the Jewish people might try Gandhian non-violent resistance.

The civilian population of Palestine is 'passive' they get slaughtered like lamb.

Pacifism certainly fails when the oppressor is not 'human'. By the way, were you aware that Jewish people attack civilians with pigs. What is your take on that?

Pacifism with the Jewish people is predictably a failure, they kill kids and look what they did to Jesus.

gerald_giampa's picture

John

(if they're from Hamas, I prefer to accept their own explanation of their motivation: 'obliteration' of Israel)

'obliteration', well, I am sure they would just be happy if the Jewish people went back to Europe and America.

But admittedly you are right. However you have unbalanced this with previous dispersions on Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat.

Hamas is not the 'PLO' or should we say 'PA' short for Palestinian Authority.

What is Hamas?

Hamas is the Palestinians

hrant's picture

John, you still need physical bodies willing to die for terrorism to work well. Money doesn't create those - in fact its absense does. For example there are far fewer Catalan terrorists than Basque ones because poverty is much lower among the former. I'm not saying everybody has to be equally rich (materially), but when the distribution is seen as unfair you get war. This is in fact the main reason to stop globalization. We're basically buying those DVD gadgets and monster SUVs at the price of the blood of others - indirectly, but still.

Also, terrorism works better against democratic countries*, and you could even say it's more justifiable (or less unjustifiable - depending on how one likes to look at it) against democratic countries, since people vote to kill the enemy. The internal conflict now welling up in earnest among Israeli Jews themselves is a sign that the greatest thing the warmongers and fundamentalists should fear** isn't some desparate Palestinian teenagers, but civil war, or possibly a police state followed by a coup d'etat. It's time to let go.

* I mean in the long run. I think that in the case of Israel for example the election of a criminal as head of state is just a matter of things having to get worse before they get better.

** Or maybe it's their greatest hope? :-/

hhp

John Hudson's picture

Pacifism certainly fails when the oppressor is not 'human'. ... Pacifism with the Jewish people is predictably a failure, they kill kids and look what they did to Jesus

Gerald, until now I was proceeding on the assumption that you did not intend to say antisemitic things, but said things that evoked antisemitic discourse without understanding. But now you reveal your true colours: you are an antisemite. And don't say you're offended because I accuse you of antisemitism: you accuse yourself by the things you say. By their fruits you shall know them indeed.

'The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.' John 10:17-18

Holding 'the Jewish people' responsible for the death of Christ is not only irrational, it is contrary to the Gospels and contrary to Church teaching. It is a creed of antisemitism, and exists in Christianity only as a cancer.


Hrant, I'd be quite happy to continue to debate things with you, but I think it is better, for the sake of my blood pressure if nothing else, if I stop visiting this thread after Gerald's latest hateful comments. It is profoundly distressing to discover that a man whom I admire professionally and who was such a great help and encouragement to me when I first started in this business -- for which I will always be grateful -- holds such offensive views.

hrant's picture

I haven't actually been reading Gerald's messages lately, but my suspicion is that he's just very angry, to point of not thinking clearly, of just blaming the most convenient group. The good news is that I don't think he'd actually hurt anybody, so he's a "confined" problem, unlike some loonies on the ground in Palestine and Israel (not to mention the puppetmasters in the US).

hhp

tidchris's picture

jh: "It is profoundly distressing ..."

maybe. I think you just talked each other into corners. Like Hrant said - compartmentalization makes it harder to see everything going on.

If you're interested in peace, see what's going on. Don't insult and attack each other. Scuff out the rules and borders. Nothing prevents you from figuring it all out together, right here in this forum, for your God's sake.

If you don't want peace, stop asking for it. Do what you have to and expect repercussion.

love you all,
Do better.

gerald_giampa's picture

John,

...the death of Christ is not only irrational

A resurrection is irrational.

On your other concerns. Firstly I am not familiar with the Bible, that does not make me anti-semite. I know you think that I am listening to kooks. Believe me I am! I have never read the bible. I cant' hold the nose of disbelief long enough. Instead I am made to suffer through the many faces and manifestations of would be dragon slayers and beasts in the name of religion. Which in my opinion, is all of them.

Including mind readers John.

I have merely been reading some of the discourse on the latest movie. It is one of the areas of contention. Sorry for reading the movie reviews.

I do not see how anyone could believe that there was any such thing as a resurrection. Then again you guys believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. In any event, I never intend to read the Bible. Recitals from the locusts of many holy roller cults is all I can take.

What I have noticed about religious people when they want to talk about religion, they are not interested in dialogue. They merely want you to listen to their fairy tale.

Which goes like this.

-----------
'The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.' John 10:17-18
---------

What doe that mean? Try this, it means nothing to me!

This addresses no issue. Particularly a large zero for a non believer. If you read it you will find the same. It is a bunch of gobbly gook.

I have given you a mistaken impression about my beliefs on religion.

Firstly the Mysterious Pooh Bah was a real person. He was the de facto consular for the entire planet. He merely did good work for the citizens of Jerusalem. He was like me, he did not care if they were a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim. It did not matter which religion they came from. He was a humanitarian. So please do not think I get down on my knees and pray to him. It would make no difference if I had a free trip to Spain when I was dead or not. Or did you miss that inconsistency?

In other words John, formal religion is a crock and you know it. Also if you visit the concept of the "virgin" Mary, it merely meant she was a young woman. Such as in virgin olives, us Italians do not verify the hymen of the olive to determine if it is sacred enough to eat.

The religious "corporations" are sexual perverts, all have bizarre understanding of the reproductive process. All preach perversions of natural human functions not to mention the irrefutable Catholic predisposition towards little boys.

You understand where that is going.

I have said that freedom of religion is sacred. However I have never said that I find "anything sacred in religion itself". In sum total, religion for the most part, makes mockery out of common sense, folly out of wisdom, its biggest victim is morality herself. Should we list the wars, count the dead. For that matter the Protestant Printers.

If there should be anything sacred it would be that which has relieved the most pain in this world.

"A mother's kiss".

If I were to believe in killing I would hold the view than anyone praying should be shot on site. Religion is roots of murder (war). Followers are their accomplice, at least but more often than not, they do the dirty work.

I am anti-religious but that still does not make me anti-semite. I am all inclusive. So no, they are "not special" just one of many. No better or worse than Christians.

Beware of goblins, religion is koo koo. Religions are outdated "Life Insurance Corporations.

So now I have taken you this far I am sure you have concluded that I am not spiritual which would be incorrect. I just do not believe in the super-natural. Sorry but I like to plant my feet on the soil.

Back to you original accusation.

I know you have met my son Luke, I do not know if you have met my other son. My other son is the closest to me. I write him more often than any other person. We are very close.

His name, Jordan Friedman, his mother is Jewish. He was in the process of becoming a Rabbi when he fell in love. (remember the natural) From him I have two grand daughters.

Nice try, no cigar!

Please do not apologize :-) I am tired of that.

Sorry no witches or hobba gobblins for you to burn today. Maybe you could sacrifice a virgin instead.



gerald_giampa's picture

I have spared you my definition of "Human".

Ask if you dare?

tidchris's picture

a : having human form or attributes
b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.
"such an inconsistency is very human." -- P. E. More
c : imperfect by design, esp. to suggest warmth and/or presence.

gerald_giampa's picture

Christopher,

I am glad you have a sense of humour.

gerald_giampa's picture

New York, NY, August 11, 2003

gerald_giampa's picture

However,

All is not lost, the truth had been found. The Jews did not kill Christ.

http://www.freepctools.com/6.htm

gerald_giampa's picture

And finally John,

The biggest holder of the world record for anti-semitism is the Catholic Church itself.

In 1965, at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism.

1900 years is a long long time. To long to become instantly unshackled.

Enough already about your ignoble accusations. Let us move on to better things.

Syndicate content Syndicate content