Sermon on the Mount

[josephpalazzo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jmcgd

BBC a dubious people?
Yes and no, there is always an agenda, but the basics of what Baruch says is well documented.

There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.

[jonb]

And the British ruling class is your problem, not mine.

Ah yes nothing at all to do with you.

It is just funny that the voice of authority used in every film, etc in the American media is the upper class British Accent. Its not like you are being trained to accept who your old wealth is or anything.




Cheers, even a working class British boy is consistently chosen to play American wealth, it just seems to many more accurate if you follow the money.

[jonb]

There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.

The difference can be moot. If the organisation is of only three people and then you finance so that it becomes of say a hundred thousand, strictly you have not founded it, but in practice that is more or less exactly what you have achieved.

[josephpalazzo]

The difference can be moot. If the organisation is of only three people and then you finance so that it becomes of say a hundred thousand, strictly you have not founded it, but in practice that is more or less exactly what you have achieved.

No, "Hamas is a creation of Israel", "Al Qaeda is a creation of the US", and so on are mischaracterizations, and mischaracterization is at best a way to sensationalize; at worst, an indication that someone has an agenda, and distorting the facts is a ploy to continue that agenda.

[jonb]

Meanwhile in Britain the evil face of Islam has won.




There are even people attacking members of the British government because of it!
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/twitter-users-are-trolling-theresa-may-over-nadiya-hussains-victory-on-the-great-british-bake-off-5428737/

[josephpalazzo]

Nothing reported in war time is true ...

I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.

But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.

[jonb]

I can see why you would say. When Germany was being clobbered both on the East and West front, the German radios would still speak of German victory.

But really, nothing reported in war time is true?!? I supposed according to you, the Holocaust was really a hoax - you should shake hands with Ahmadinejad.

During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.

[josephpalazzo]

During WW2 the allies hardly reported on the holocaust, as from what they knew about it seemed so extreme that it was felt it would be considered by the public as pure propaganda and as such cause a lack of belief and distract from the whole message being said by the western allies.

It wasn't reported because they were no official report just rumors, and how could they have official reports until they invaded Germany and saw the concentration camps with their own eyes?!?

As usual, you miss the point I was making to Baruch, which was another mischaracterization of what is reported during wars - sure there is a lot of propaganda, but making a blanket statement like "Nothing reported in war time is true", a cliché which is a complete distortion.

[jonb]

'Nothing reported in war time is true' is an obvious over exaggeration, but to try to combat that with a story that was hardy reported in the war is about the worst example that could be chosen to refute it.

I personally tend to overlook most of the obvious over exaggerations I see, because I presume that is just the way people tend to express themselves. However given all the stories that could be chosen from the war which were widely reported to refute that exaggeration with the one story which was quite hidden seems a very odd choice. As such I thought some attention should be paid to it.

[josephpalazzo]

'Nothing reported in war time is true' is an obvious over exaggeration, but to try to combat that with a story that was hardy reported in the war is about the worst example that could be chosen to refute it.

The first official reports came in 1944, when the war was not over. So choosing that as an example was quite appropriate.

The first major camp, Majdanek, was discovered by the advancing Soviets on July 23, 1944. Auschwitz was liberated, also by the Soviets, on January 27, 1945; Buchenwald by the Americans on April 11; Bergen-Belsen by the British on April 15; Dachau by the Americans on April 29; Ravensbrück by the Soviets on the same day; Mauthausen by the Americans on May 5; and Theresienstadt by the Soviets on May 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

[jonb]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded

Daily Telegraph's holocaust article in 1942 that went unheralded
Newspaper tells tragic story behind its original report of the mass murder of Jews

[josephpalazzo]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded

You should show that your like-minded friend, Baruch, with his "Nothing reported in war time is true". LOL.

[jonb]

Baruch and I disagree of quite a lot if you hadn't noticed.
But I thought it is worthwhile showing to you, because I think you may be big enough to admit now it was worth my bringing it up, as your presumptions seem to be out by at least two years of a four/five+ year war, and not stand up to scrutiny.

[josephpalazzo]

Baruch and I disagree of quite a lot if you hadn't noticed.
But I thought it is worthwhile showing to you, because I think you may be big enough to admit now it was worth my bringing it up, as your presumptions seem to be out by at least two years of a four/five+ year war, and not stand up to scrutiny.

In what way it doesn't stand to scrutiny??? The point was the mischaracterization of ""Nothing reported in war time is true", which you tried to defend, and you did it extremely badly - first by trying to prove that the Holocaust was a bad example, which I proved you wrong, then by bringing a link that proves my point of the mischaracterization. You were soundly defeated and you don't even realize it. You just proved that you are more of an idiot than I thought you were.

Have a nice day.

[Baruch]

There's a difference between "Israel has supported Hamas", most likely true, and "Israel created Hamas", definitely false.

One would have had to attend all the Mossad meetings to make that distinction.  Would you agree that the Rothschilds, the trillionaires who rule this planet, created modern Israel?  Oh yes, we didn't attend the top secret meetings between that family and Herzel, or between that family and the British Foreign Office.  So we will never know.