Forum Sceptique

Red Pill a écrit :C'est çà. Y a que les conspiro-paranos qui détiennent le monopole de la vérité et ceux qui n'avalent pas leurs couleuvres ont le cerveau lavé.Blaaaaaa Bla Bla!!!!Déjà tellement dit. Déjà tellement gueulé. Et l'ONU, c'est des lavés du cerveau peut être pour condamner le négationisme? Non mais

Zundel a écrit :Tu dis ça parce que, contrairement à nous trois, toi t'as pas de références sur lesquelles t'appuyer.

Red Pill a écrit : D'une certaine façon, vous ressemblez aux fondamentalistes qui sont incapable d'entammer une discussion sans citer la Bible.

Petrov a écrit :Les juifs ne sont pas différant des Anglais ou des Américains et meme que nous, les canadiens: ils sont controllés par des criminels.

Fire destroys building used by anti-Israel religious Jewish group in Monsey, By STEVE LIEBERMAN, THE JOURNAL NEWS, April 1, 2007

MONSEY - A highly suspicious fire tonight burned down a synagogue-house used by an anti-Israel, ultra-Orthodox Jewish group whose members attended the Iran-sponsored Holocaust denial conference last year.

Jews flock to Germany
By Harry de Quetteville in Berlin 03/04/2007

Almost 70 years after the Nazis plotted the Holocaust, German Jews yesterday celebrated the Passover holiday with the news that their community has become the fastest growing in the world.

This extraordinary reversal of fortune has even seen Jewish immigration to Germany outstrip that to Israel.

According to one rabbi, Israelis are flocking to Berlin, rather than German Jews making their aliya, or emigration, to Israel.

"Berlin is the place to be," Rabbi Walter Homolka, the principal of the Rabbinical Seminary in the German capital, said. Like Jews across the world, Rabbi Homolka was yesterday preparing for the Passover holiday, which celebrates the freeing of the Israelites from ancient Egypt.

'Move Jews To Germany'
Thursday December 08, 2005
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for massacring Jews, Israel should be moved there instead.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

Let's consider for a moment that Ahmadinejad really does wish to initiate a nuclear war on Israel, is this feasible? It would be like Paris Hilton picking a fight with Mike Tyson. The CIA's own estimates put Iran five to ten years away from being able to produce one nuclear bomb even if they were in the planning stages now, which is highly unlikely given that international inspectors have found no evidence of such a program and CIA satellite imagery also shows no proof of nuclear arms. Contrast this to an Israeli arsenal of anything up to 200 launch ready nukes allied to the might of the U.S. which has nearly 6,000 active warheads not to mention so-called "mini-nukes."

While it can be reasonably argued that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, to then claim that this means Ahmadinejad wishes to enact a second holocaust is an unfathomable leap of logic. The real reason for any nation in that region trying to acquire a nuclear weapon is for self defense, because they are surrounded by other hostile powers that already have the bomb.

TOP 11 REASONS YOU SHOULD FIGHT HATE LAWS

1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.
2. Hate speech bans don’t work.
3. Hate laws aren’t necessary.
4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.
5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.
6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.
7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.
8. The government’s interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.
9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.
10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.
11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.

Dalyell: 'Zionist cabal runs policy on Israel'
BRIAN BRADY

TONY Blair has been accused of surrounding himself with a "cabal" of Jewish advisers in an astonishing attack by Scotland’s most senior MP.

Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, says Blair aides are skewing British foreign policy on the Middle East in favour of the Israeli government.

Dalyell suggests Blair was "unduly influenced" by figures including Lord Levy, Labour’s chief fund-raiser and Blair’s unofficial envoy to the region, Peter Mandelson, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, an Anglican who had a Jewish grandfather.

The Linlithgow MP, who is notorious for his outspoken views on a wide variety of controversial subjects, was quoted in the latest edition of the American magazine Vanity Fair in a profile of Blair. In a passage on Blair’s "staunch" support of Israel, Vanity Fair writer David Margolick states: "The senior member of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, even tells me he thinks Blair is unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers. He mentions Mandelson, Lord Levy and Jack Straw."

Yesterday, when Scotland on Sunday checked the quotes with Dalyell, he replied: "I’m very open about this. I wouldn’t say I’ve been misquoted."

Dalyell, the longest-serving MP in the Commons, said hawks in Washington were already too close to the right-wing Likud government of Israeli leader Ariel Sharon.

Dalyell told Scotland on Sunday: "Blair and Straw have become far too close to these people and Lord Levy, who is an unaccountable ambassador in the Middle East, is part of this group. They are acting on an extremely Zionist, Likud-nik agenda. In particular I am concerned that some of them are pushing for an attack on Syria, for reasons of Israeli security.

"It is an enormously sensitive issue and that’s why very many of us have been extremely reticent about it, because we don’t want to be seen as anti-Semitic."

MOSSAD a écrit :Laurent,
Ta technique de propagande utilisant le ridicule (déformer le nom de l'adversaire) est un peu vieillotte. Tu peux trouver mieux... tu sais, on a fait beaucoup de progrès en propagande depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale...

Ne pas jeter de perles aux pourceaux...

Flebeleb a écrit :Laurent,
Ta technique de propagande utilisant le ridicule (déformer le nom de l'adversaire) est un peu vieillotte. Tu peux trouver mieux... tu sais, on a fait beaucoup de progrès en propagande depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale...

Denis a écrit : Entre défendre violemment une cause juste ou défendre pacifiquement une mauvaise cause, mon coeur balance. Ça dépend d'à quel point c'est violent, juste, pacifique ou mauvais.

Faut donc juger au cas par cas.

Denis

Qu'est-ce qui serait moralement pire selon toi entre:
tuer Bush
ou
étudier scientifiquement les chambres à gaz?