Assassination attempt on Palestinian in Dublin

[Mujaahid]

Which was done. And it wasn't the ordinary man, it was antisemites.

You claim over and over again that the Talmud enjoins Jews to lie to non-Jews.

It does, even if you insist it's hypothetical

These spellings can, however, be located in any number of vile antisemitic hate sites all over the internet.

True, that doesn't nullify the argument though - does it?

More specifically, many of the same claims, and the same mis-spellings, are to be found in Lyrl VanHynings antisemitic screed Keys to the Mystery, and the others are all from Marsden's 1939 translation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Quite honestly never heard of them, but I'll look them up now you've given the references. Isn't the Protocols a forgery?

Shahak

I did look up a number of sites that quote Shahak, all the Zionist ones call him a self-hating Jew there's honest debate for ya!

Oooooohhh - name calling now. I fell into that with L'Chaim but was advised how very childish it was, take note. Here's a few more references to get you going, I do hope my transliteration is OK
1. Baba Mezia 114a-114b - what does it infer about non-Jews?
2. Moed Kattan 17a - what does it recommend a Jew do if he is overcome by evil?
3. Berachot 58a records one individual sage (Rabbi Shila) referring to gentile women as what?
4. Can you explain the contradiction between Sanhedrin 57a & Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) with regard to cheating non-Jews
5. Baba Kamma 37b "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full" as 38 specifically refers to those who do not recognise the laws of Noah, what does that mean in terms of dealings in the modern day?
6. Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." Could you explain this?
7. Baba Kamma 113a. "Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile". This of course refers to tax collectors working for the occupier. As another passage clearly talks about the eventual rule of the Jews, doesn't it imply you are still technically in a position of subjugation and wouldn't that imply that the ruling might still come into play?
8. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b advises Jews not to place their animals near heathens, why?
9. Sanhedrin 90a - has a severe warning about reading the New Testament, what is it?
10. Gittin 69a - recommends an 'odd' remedy for dealing with flesh wounds, can you elaborate?
11. Sanhedrin 55b - contains a terrible pedophilia passage, or have I misunderstood "A girl of three years and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..."????????
12. Baba Mezia 59b - contains a strange story of a rabbi debating G-d and beating Him, do you actually believe G-d would empower a man to defeat Him?
13. Gittin 70a . The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." hmmmmmmmmmmm

Am I antisemitic because I ask you questions? Surely your belief, like mine, is not above query, right?

[SonnyLaymatina]

[quote=Sonic_exyouth]

I am much more concerned that people like you are not behind bars - hopefully we can change that.

off topic but still related...

Actually Muj you have just given me an idea... I would not have thought about it... But another Jew on this forum (if anyone need details I am all too happy to provide) wrote me a private message recently stating something in Hebrew... It was in answer to a question of mine which was... "Who would he support in case Israel and Ireland went to war?" I truly think that my contact in the Irish Times would take a keen interest in his reply... and why not... when Muslims who make silly claims about the flag of Islam flying over Ireland get so much coverage in the media... so why should not the open claims of intended treason by a certain number of Irish Jews be exposed to the public... Reporting this to the media is something we should do... I ll forward you his reply... This is getting more interesting by the day...

while we're completely off topic and in the clouds of fantasy i pose this question @ muj and dr qasim.

if muhommed came to you in a dream/visitation from above and told you to take up arms against ireland, would you do so?

Absolutely NOT. Try get the same clear answer from any of the Zionists here, L'Chaim was the only one with some gumption, but even he's backing away from his original comments now . In truth these guys have you all over a barrel. They utter traitorous remarks and are so sure of public sympathy over what happened over 60 years ago they believe they can get away with it - well, can they? They have Mossad agents working here, carrying out operations and no one says a word, why?
The genocide of the Jews and other minority groups in Europe was a terrible thing, but that does not give the Zionists carte blanche to do and say as they wish. L'Chaim has uttered a statement that would see a Muslim locked , it is widely rumored that L'Chaim is an Israeli embassy employee - if that is his view, what are the views of other Zionists among us, truly they pose an imminent danger and should be considered the enemy within. We should be asking for a clear denunciation of L'Chaim's remarks - but even if we get that, can we really believe them - after all according to the Talmud they can lie and deceive the goyim.

But to be fair here, we got a clear denunciation or assertion from you (and another Muslim here) about not fighting Ireland based upon a dream request from Mohammad - but even though we got that, can we really believe you two - after all according to the Koran you can lie, deceive and even kill the infidel...right? I ask that not to be smart but because I don't trust any kind of religious fanantic...Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian or Mormon.

Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church? - Is that whats going on in Iraq?
What Quran do you read, I only know of one, which says that "Gods curse" is on those who lie.[/quote:3suogao5]

Nice try, but which Christian Church are you talking about? Not the Unitarian Universalist! And what's going on in Iraq, an imperial oil land grabbing war, has little to do with religion. But that all said why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (Surah 9:5).

[Mujaahid]

Which was done. And it wasn't the ordinary man, it was antisemites.

[quote:1i99fp2g]You claim over and over again that the Talmud enjoins Jews to lie to non-Jews.

It does, even if you insist it's hypothetical

These spellings can, however, be located in any number of vile antisemitic hate sites all over the internet.

True, that doesn't nullify the argument though - does it?

More specifically, many of the same claims, and the same mis-spellings, are to be found in Lyrl VanHynings antisemitic screed Keys to the Mystery, and the others are all from Marsden's 1939 translation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Quite honestly never heard of them, but I'll look them up now you've given the references. Isn't the Protocols a forgery?

Shahak

I did look up a number of sites that quote Shahak, all the Zionist ones call him a self-hating Jew there's honest debate for ya!

Oooooohhh - name calling now. I fell into that with L'Chaim but was advised how very childish it was, take note. Here's a few more references to get you going, I do hope my transliteration is OK
1. Baba Mezia 114a-114b - what does it infer about non-Jews?
2. Moed Kattan 17a - what does it recommend a Jew do if he is overcome by evil?
3. Berachot 58a records one individual sage (Rabbi Shila) referring to gentile women as what?
4. Can you explain the contradiction between Sanhedrin 57a & Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) with regard to cheating non-Jews
5. Baba Kamma 37b "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full" as 38 specifically refers to those who do not recognise the laws of Noah, what does that mean in terms of dealings in the modern day?
6. Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." Could you explain this?
7. Baba Kamma 113a. "Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile". This of course refers to tax collectors working for the occupier. As another passage clearly talks about the eventual rule of the Jews, doesn't it imply you are still technically in a position of subjugation and wouldn't that imply that the ruling might still come into play?
8. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b advises Jews not to place their animals near heathens, why?
9. Sanhedrin 90a - has a severe warning about reading the New Testament, what is it?
10. Gittin 69a - recommends an 'odd' remedy for dealing with flesh wounds, can you elaborate?
11. Sanhedrin 55b - contains a terrible pedophilia passage, or have I misunderstood "A girl of three years and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..."????????
12. Baba Mezia 59b - contains a strange story of a rabbi debating G-d and beating Him, do you actually believe G-d would empower a man to defeat Him?
13. Gittin 70a . The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." hmmmmmmmmmmm

Am I antisemitic because I ask you questions? Surely your belief, like mine, is not above query, right?[/quote:1i99fp2g]
Nothing from L'Chaim or Krackov?

[L'Chaim]

Yes, here's my response.

http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

I posted this link already in this thread. It's from the Anti-Defamation League. I'm sure it was written with people like you in mind

[Mujaahid]

Yes, here's my response.

http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

I posted this link already in this thread. It's from the Anti-Defamation League. I'm sure it was written with people like you in mind

Interesting - but I got all the quotes from authentic Jewish sites and the questions are all legitimate. Are you saying that we cannot have a discussion about the books Jews hold as a guide without being labeled antisemitic?? I haven't said anything about Jesus or Mary, what are your thoughts on Jesus - was he the Messiah?

[khavakoz]

You claim over and over again that the Talmud enjoins Jews to lie to non-Jews.

It does, even if you insist it's hypothetical

It does not. Do you have a hole in your head when it comes to this issue or, more likely, are you just trolling. The Babylonian Talmud is a document written fifteen centuries ago. It teaches 'the faithful' the most considered opinions of the greatest authorities of the faith. It does this by way of dialogues exploring various claims and arguments. To say that the Talmud tells Jews it is okay to lie is a nonsense. It examines those arguments which could be used by someone to rationalise lying, and rejects them, continually.

To say, in the face of all the evidence, that "It does, even if you insist it's hypothetical" is frankly trolling or ignorance, and quire possibly both. To continue to state this when the process has been explained to you in this thread on numerous occasions is quite incomprehensible. Do you have any knowledge of Socratic Debates? The process is the same - it is not in the bare argument where we find truth, but in the process of dispensing with that argument.

Here's a few more references to get you going, I do hope my transliteration is OK

Really? Wow - your understanding of ancient Aramaic and Hebrew is quite astonishing! If you are transliterating these things yourself, then I'm sure there is no way your transliterations will be precisely the same as those found on antisemitic hate sites, is there?

1. Baba Mezia 114a-114b - what does it infer about non-Jews?

Nothing at all. Rabbi Shimon Bar-Yochai makes the statement that non-Jews are not Jews for the purpose of the laws of impurity - therefore a Priest(Kohan) can touch a non-Jewish corpse without being defiled. If anything, it raises non-Jews above the level of Jews, as it states that a non-Jewish corpse retains its humanity, unlike a Jewish one.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

2. Moed Kattan 17a - what does it recommend a Jew do if he is overcome by evil?

Okay - "R. Elayi says: 'if a man sees that the evil urges is overcoming him he should go to a place where no one knows him, dress in black, cover himself in black and do what his heart wills and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public".
First of all, the piece does not refer to a Jew, it refers to any person. Secondly it refers to someone who is overcome by evil - he will do the thing in all likelihood. It then enjoins him to travel to a distant place and then to dress differently so all should know this is a person overcome by evil. Finally the hope is expressed by all of the commentators in Moed Kattan that this person will then repent of his evil - his heart now willing him to not desecrate the name of Heaven, having come to know in the process of his wanderings the nature of evil.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

3. Berachot 58a records one individual sage (Rabbi Shila) referring to gentile women as what?

One Rabbi makes a slight of hand comment antithetical to Egyptian women, and only Egyptian women. The text can be rad as R' Shilla referring to one Egyptian woman as a she-ass. It does not generalise to all Gentile women in the least, and was probably a reaction to the suffering the Jews had undergone at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Most importantly, the word used in the piece for she-ass - "Chamor" - is not the same word used in the rest of Berachot - "Aton" - which suggests later authorship.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

4. Can you explain the contradiction between Sanhedrin 57a & Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) with regard to cheating non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a simply states that the instance of a Jew failing to pay a non-Jew the wages owed him for work is not something which can be tried in a Jewish court - it is a matter of the Laws of the King|State. Not paying is not the same thing as stealing, a point reinforced in Tosefta Baba Kama where is states that "It is more grievous to steal from a non-Jew than from a Jew because of the desecration of G-d's name".

This most certainly does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

5. Baba Kamma 37b "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full" as 38 specifically refers to those who do not recognise the laws of Noah, what does that mean in terms of dealings in the modern day?

Wonderful, here you are not only omitting the basic text of the part, but introducing another unrelated issue to misreperesent what was being said. The text relates to the difficult legal issues arising fromt he fact that the Canaanites did not hold themselves liable for any damage caused by their own animals. Since they did not take the minimum steps necessary to prevent their own animals from doing damage to others, the sages ruled that the Canaanites should be bound by their own rules. Any attempt to claim this leads to some fault in dealings in the modern age is preposterous.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

6. Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." Could you explain this?

Errr - see above...Any translation of Canaanite to Gentile in the context of Baba Kamma is a falsehood. The discussion in the above drags on for quite a bit, but nowhere does it refer to Gentiles, only to Canaanites. It does refer to a passage of the Bible, which is often translated by christians to read Gentiles. The phrase you cite comes from that source, but is part of a much longer quote describing the destruction of the world in the flood. The two concepts are in no way linked together textually in the manner suggested by you.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

7. Baba Kamma 113a. "Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile". This of course refers to tax collectors working for the occupier. As another passage clearly talks about the eventual rule of the Jews, doesn't it imply you are still technically in a position of subjugation and wouldn't that imply that the ruling might still come into play?

I have dealt with this preposterous claim previously in the thread. Quite clearly you didn't, as I alleged, bother to read any of it, preferring instead to make some nonsensical comment, with your usuall 'roll'

In any event, it does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

8. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b advises Jews not to place their animals near heathens, why?

The full text is: "One should not place cattle in heathens' inns, because they are suspected of immoral practice with them." and refers to the fact that Greek innkeepers had a reputation for bestiality. Read any historical book on the issue - they did. The issue is whether an animal which has been kept in such an inn would still be considered kosher - needless to say - it wouldn't.

This does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

9. Sanhedrin 90a - has a severe warning about reading the New Testament, what is it?

Oh wow - a religious book is against reading other religions books! What a shocker! Incidentally, it applies only to those *Jews* who read heretical books. And the New Testament is not named explicitly. Sanhedrin 90a just says Jews should stick to Jewish scripture. It doesn't single out Christianity in particular.

The claim that it refers specifically to the New Testament is a favourite of american antisemitic right-wing religious fanatics. As with all your other cites, it still does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

10. Gittin 69a - recommends an 'odd' remedy for dealing with flesh wounds, can you elaborate?

A book 1500 years old, codified from an oral history goiung back several hundreds of years before that, contains a folk remedy. Well smite me on the head, the entire religion must be wrong! Incidentally, the footnotes to the very passage state that the remedy is nonsensical, and recommends the reader to clean their flesh wounds thoroughly. Not bad for a writer in 500 CE, and nothing at all to do with telling Jews to lie to non-Jews.

11. Sanhedrin 55b - contains a terrible pedophilia passage, or have I misunderstood "A girl of three years and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..."

Yeah, that one is unpleasant. It relates, however, to a theoretical construct - something I know you have grave difficulty in understanding. Basically, the laws provided that there were different legal consequences arising from an act of intercourse (related to personal status, punishment for rape, property rights etc.) and the Talmud investigates whether such an act committed on a baby girl has the status of intercourse or not. It examines it from the perspective of giving the girl and her family property rights as against the one who has defiled her.

In the issue of creating a marriage bond itself by the act of intercourse, the Talmud is very strongly against it at any age, and listed a whole string of punishments to be applied to any man who did so, or who aided in it. Needless to say, the passage cited does not tell Jews to lie to non-Jews.

12. Baba Mezia 59b - contains a strange story of a rabbi debating G-d and beating Him, do you actually believe G-d would empower a man to defeat Him?

Why not? Sounds like a fair and just G-d to me. I am going to very kindly suggest that you read the piece and try to gain some understanding of what is being spoken of.

In short, R' Eliezer tries to prove his point in debate against the overwhelming majority of the sages by invoking various miracles - and even a 'bat kol' or heavenly echo - to show that G-d supported his position. Nonetheless the majority prevailed. The passage ends by describing how Elijah the prophet claimed that on that day G-d smiled and admitted his sons had defeated him in debate. In modern parlance, the writer is taking the piss.

Incidentally, the claim that this passage suggests that the Talmud is heretical comes from a famous antisemitic document called "The Talmud Exposed" where it is immediately followed by a reference to Gittin 70a....

13. Gittin 70a . The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." hmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, how amazing is that? Not only have you become fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew, but your travels across hundreds of pages of the Talmud have put your claims in precisely the same order as a legendary antisemitic document!
In short, much of Judaism is concerned with separating the holy from the unholy. This teaching is concerned with separating the (unholy) act of going to the bathroom and the holy act of having relations with one's wife. Similarly, it is forbidden to pray in the presence of excrement or bad smells, etc.

Am I antisemitic because I ask you questions? Surely your belief, like mine, is not above query, right?

No, you are citing blatant antisemitic falsehoods. You appear - from all available evidence - to be sourcing the entirety of your arguments from antisemitic writings.
Your last selection of choice quotes were blatant lies from Lyrl VanHyning and Protocols of the Elders of Zion The above selection are all taken from The Talmud Exposed - the claims are even in precisely the same order as they are presented in that document.
You are antisemitic because you are an antisemite. In the same way that Alex Jones or David Duke are antisemitic, in the same way that Anjem Choudry and Terence 'Khalid' Kelly are antisemitic. You cloak your hatred and bile in such high-sounding words, but a moments examination shows you up for what you are

Nothing from L'Chaim or Krackov?

You antisemitic troll.

I'm done with you and I am certainly done with this discussion. I suggest you try to open your mind to the possibility that your mind is diseased and sick. I suggest you try to cleanse it.

[Mujaahid]

How to stifle debate - name call.
But as I hold neither you nor L'Chaim in any regard whatsoever, carry on to your heart's content.

One point though, every quote I took was from a Jewish apologist site specifically set up to counter misuse of the Talmud, and interestingly enough every argument you put forward was a carbon copy of the responses they recommend. Not only are the responses dishonest and inaccurate, they are designed to circumvent some of the more hateful and dubious rulings and recommendations in the Talmud. There are of course commentaries on the statements made by certain rabbis and a number of them certainly do offer the same reading and understanding that your 'antisemites' come up with.

What you are attempting to do is stave off any criticism of your law, but you dear boy are not above criticism, even if you are Jewish.

[Sonic_exyouth]

[quote=SonnyLaymatina]

I am much more concerned that people like you are not behind bars - hopefully we can change that.

off topic but still related...

Actually Muj you have just given me an idea... I would not have thought about it... But another Jew on this forum (if anyone need details I am all too happy to provide) wrote me a private message recently stating something in Hebrew... It was in answer to a question of mine which was... "Who would he support in case Israel and Ireland went to war?" I truly think that my contact in the Irish Times would take a keen interest in his reply... and why not... when Muslims who make silly claims about the flag of Islam flying over Ireland get so much coverage in the media... so why should not the open claims of intended treason by a certain number of Irish Jews be exposed to the public... Reporting this to the media is something we should do... I ll forward you his reply... This is getting more interesting by the day...

while we're completely off topic and in the clouds of fantasy i pose this question @ muj and dr qasim.

if muhommed came to you in a dream/visitation from above and told you to take up arms against ireland, would you do so?

Absolutely NOT. Try get the same clear answer from any of the Zionists here, L'Chaim was the only one with some gumption, but even he's backing away from his original comments now . In truth these guys have you all over a barrel. They utter traitorous remarks and are so sure of public sympathy over what happened over 60 years ago they believe they can get away with it - well, can they? They have Mossad agents working here, carrying out operations and no one says a word, why?
The genocide of the Jews and other minority groups in Europe was a terrible thing, but that does not give the Zionists carte blanche to do and say as they wish. L'Chaim has uttered a statement that would see a Muslim locked , it is widely rumored that L'Chaim is an Israeli embassy employee - if that is his view, what are the views of other Zionists among us, truly they pose an imminent danger and should be considered the enemy within. We should be asking for a clear denunciation of L'Chaim's remarks - but even if we get that, can we really believe them - after all according to the Talmud they can lie and deceive the goyim.

But to be fair here, we got a clear denunciation or assertion from you (and another Muslim here) about not fighting Ireland based upon a dream request from Mohammad - but even though we got that, can we really believe you two - after all according to the Koran you can lie, deceive and even kill the infidel...right? I ask that not to be smart but because I don't trust any kind of religious fanantic...Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian or Mormon.

Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church? - Is that whats going on in Iraq?
What Quran do you read, I only know of one, which says that "Gods curse" is on those who lie.

Nice try, but which Christian Church are you talking about? Not the Unitarian Universalist! And what's going on in Iraq, an imperial oil land grabbing war, has little to do with religion. But that all said why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (Surah 9:5).[/quote:1no26jph]

I was not talking about Christians, you were.

And that ayat is there because Muslims were being attacked by people referred to as 'Mushrikûn', non-believers. The very next also, explictly, states "And if anyone of the Mushrikûn seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. "

[SonnyLaymatina]

[quote=Sonic_exyouth][quote=SonnyLaymatina]

I am much more concerned that people like you are not behind bars - hopefully we can change that.

off topic but still related...

Actually Muj you have just given me an idea... I would not have thought about it... But another Jew on this forum (if anyone need details I am all too happy to provide) wrote me a private message recently stating something in Hebrew... It was in answer to a question of mine which was... "Who would he support in case Israel and Ireland went to war?" I truly think that my contact in the Irish Times would take a keen interest in his reply... and why not... when Muslims who make silly claims about the flag of Islam flying over Ireland get so much coverage in the media... so why should not the open claims of intended treason by a certain number of Irish Jews be exposed to the public... Reporting this to the media is something we should do... I ll forward you his reply... This is getting more interesting by the day...

while we're completely off topic and in the clouds of fantasy i pose this question @ muj and dr qasim.

if muhommed came to you in a dream/visitation from above and told you to take up arms against ireland, would you do so?

Absolutely NOT. Try get the same clear answer from any of the Zionists here, L'Chaim was the only one with some gumption, but even he's backing away from his original comments now . In truth these guys have you all over a barrel. They utter traitorous remarks and are so sure of public sympathy over what happened over 60 years ago they believe they can get away with it - well, can they? They have Mossad agents working here, carrying out operations and no one says a word, why?
The genocide of the Jews and other minority groups in Europe was a terrible thing, but that does not give the Zionists carte blanche to do and say as they wish. L'Chaim has uttered a statement that would see a Muslim locked , it is widely rumored that L'Chaim is an Israeli embassy employee - if that is his view, what are the views of other Zionists among us, truly they pose an imminent danger and should be considered the enemy within. We should be asking for a clear denunciation of L'Chaim's remarks - but even if we get that, can we really believe them - after all according to the Talmud they can lie and deceive the goyim.

But to be fair here, we got a clear denunciation or assertion from you (and another Muslim here) about not fighting Ireland based upon a dream request from Mohammad - but even though we got that, can we really believe you two - after all according to the Koran you can lie, deceive and even kill the infidel...right? I ask that not to be smart but because I don't trust any kind of religious fanantic...Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian or Mormon.

Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church? - Is that whats going on in Iraq?
What Quran do you read, I only know of one, which says that "Gods curse" is on those who lie.

Nice try, but which Christian Church are you talking about? Not the Unitarian Universalist! And what's going on in Iraq, an imperial oil land grabbing war, has little to do with religion. But that all said why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (Surah 9:5).[/quote:60zgj7hh]

I was not talking about Christians, you were.

And that ayat is there because Muslims were being attacked by people referred to as 'Mushrikûn', non-believers. The very next also, explictly, states "And if anyone of the Mushrikûn seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. "[/quote:60zgj7hh]

T'was you who said: "Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church?" I was not talking about Christians in particular but about religious fanaticism in general and the tendency for such individuals and groups to lie to others and rationalize same such as your spin here about Surah 9:5 in the Quran being stated (ahem) in a defensive context. But who we going to believe? You or what we can read with our own eyes: "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" The obvious inference here is to search and destroy others which is always an offensive tactic whether by Mohammad or George Bush, and if the unbelievers willing subjegate themselves to you...well...like any collaborators...they can be useful rather than killed. Bottom line: there are fanatics in all religions...and they're too often a bunch of liars.

[Sonic_exyouth]

[quote=SonnyLaymatina][quote=Sonic_exyouth][quote=SonnyLaymatina]

I am much more concerned that people like you are not behind bars - hopefully we can change that.

off topic but still related...

Actually Muj you have just given me an idea... I would not have thought about it... But another Jew on this forum (if anyone need details I am all too happy to provide) wrote me a private message recently stating something in Hebrew... It was in answer to a question of mine which was... "Who would he support in case Israel and Ireland went to war?" I truly think that my contact in the Irish Times would take a keen interest in his reply... and why not... when Muslims who make silly claims about the flag of Islam flying over Ireland get so much coverage in the media... so why should not the open claims of intended treason by a certain number of Irish Jews be exposed to the public... Reporting this to the media is something we should do... I ll forward you his reply... This is getting more interesting by the day...

while we're completely off topic and in the clouds of fantasy i pose this question @ muj and dr qasim.

if muhommed came to you in a dream/visitation from above and told you to take up arms against ireland, would you do so?

Absolutely NOT. Try get the same clear answer from any of the Zionists here, L'Chaim was the only one with some gumption, but even he's backing away from his original comments now . In truth these guys have you all over a barrel. They utter traitorous remarks and are so sure of public sympathy over what happened over 60 years ago they believe they can get away with it - well, can they? They have Mossad agents working here, carrying out operations and no one says a word, why?
The genocide of the Jews and other minority groups in Europe was a terrible thing, but that does not give the Zionists carte blanche to do and say as they wish. L'Chaim has uttered a statement that would see a Muslim locked , it is widely rumored that L'Chaim is an Israeli embassy employee - if that is his view, what are the views of other Zionists among us, truly they pose an imminent danger and should be considered the enemy within. We should be asking for a clear denunciation of L'Chaim's remarks - but even if we get that, can we really believe them - after all according to the Talmud they can lie and deceive the goyim.

But to be fair here, we got a clear denunciation or assertion from you (and another Muslim here) about not fighting Ireland based upon a dream request from Mohammad - but even though we got that, can we really believe you two - after all according to the Koran you can lie, deceive and even kill the infidel...right? I ask that not to be smart but because I don't trust any kind of religious fanantic...Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian or Mormon.

Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church? - Is that whats going on in Iraq?
What Quran do you read, I only know of one, which says that "Gods curse" is on those who lie.

Nice try, but which Christian Church are you talking about? Not the Unitarian Universalist! And what's going on in Iraq, an imperial oil land grabbing war, has little to do with religion. But that all said why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (Surah 9:5).[/quote:17hdjq8x]

I was not talking about Christians, you were.

And that ayat is there because Muslims were being attacked by people referred to as 'Mushrikûn', non-believers. The very next also, explictly, states "And if anyone of the Mushrikûn seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. "[/quote:17hdjq8x]

T'was you who said: "Kill Infidels.. kill those who are not baptised into the Christian Church?" I was not talking about Christians in particular but about religious fanaticism in general and the tendency for such individuals and groups to lie to others and rationalize same such as your spin here about Surah 9:5 in the Quran being stated (ahem) in a defensive context. But who we going to believe? You or what we can read with our own eyes: "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" The obvious inference here is to search and destroy others which is always an offensive tactic whether by Mohammad or George Bush, and if the unbelievers willing subjegate themselves to you...well...like any collaborators...they can be useful rather than killed. Bottom line: there are fanatics in all religions...and they're too often a bunch of liars.[/quote:17hdjq8x]

Picking quotes at random, ignoring context, is stupid.

It's as though you were selectively choosing the quotes that suit your argument, and willfully ignoring the bits before and after which set the context, so as to score cheap stupid points hoping no-one will take the ten seconds of effort it takes to actually see the context?
Thats not true now, is it?!
The word, by the way, again is "Mushrikûn", or "Mushrikoon", or[size=7] ??????[/size]