Idiots who equate colonisation with nazism.

[newman]

Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!

1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.

2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.

[Raulmarrio2000]

Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!

1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.

2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.

If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.

The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

the Jews who were the followers of Jesus were very few. + they differed from the church and the Christians of today. I heard that they were killed and/or converted by the Islamists who came and took over Saudi Arabia. Either way even if some christians do have Jewish ancestry they aren't Jews + the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of Christians didn't come from Jews, but from gentiles in the Roman empire (especially after this Roman emperor became a Christian and made it the official religion.

[newman]

Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!

1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.

2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.

If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.

The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations

Wrong.

They would be considered as 'abducted babies' and not subject to a charge of herresy.

[Raulmarrio2000]

"Abducted babies" if they do not that they are Jewish, or if they don't believe in Judaism at all. But in case they care to prove Jewish matrilineal descent, consider themselves Jewish, and refuse to return, it may be heresy. Anyway I doubt that any Christian is Hallachcally Jewish from the time of Jesus. The only Christian Jews may be some Bnei Anusim, and they can, in fact, be considered abducted

[Boeregeneraal]

Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!

1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.

2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.

If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.

The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations

Just a reminder, Christians do NOT calim Eretz Yisrael
It was simply a constructed opinion to prove a point.

[Dexter]

Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.

Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people.  When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.

Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
 
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.

Now, I hope everything is clear.

[newman]

Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.

Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people.  When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.

Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
 
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.

Now, I hope everything is clear.

I refuse to put the people of two to five hundred years ago under such rediculous 21st century scrutiny.

I also maintain that the savages of the world must be managed by those more able. Retards are put in homes, children are parented, apes put in zoos. Thus savages must be colonised.

[Dexter]

Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.

Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people.  When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.

Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
 
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.

Now, I hope everything is clear.

I refuse to put the people of two to five hundred years ago under such rediculous 21st century scrutiny.

I also maintain that the savages of the world must be managed by those more able. Retards are put in homes, children are parented, apes put in zoos. Thus savages must be colonised.

Yet you say Muhammad was a rapist and evil.

The "savges" don't must to be Colonised but to have trade connecetion with the European that will effect them for the good.

[newman]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

[ASHISH]

Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in  Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer  opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].[censored] colonisation

[Dexter]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

[Ambiorix]

Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in  Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer  opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation

That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.

[Ambiorix]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Thanks to modern health care more and more arabs manage to survive, than if they were without western medication.
Finally our western healthcare in those countries, is going to facilitate the hordes to grow in number, that want to conquer our lands.

[newman]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?

It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!

[Dexter]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?

It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!

Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.

[ASHISH]

Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in  Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer  opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation

That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.

What is intifada?

[Dexter]

Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in  Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer  opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation

That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.

What is intifada?

Intifada means resistance in Arabic and it refers to two cruel riots that the Arabs started at 1987 and 2000.

[ASHISH]

Ambiorix are you supporting this massacre

[newman]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?

It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!

Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.

THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dexter]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?

It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!

Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.

THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't metter, the crimes already done and slavery existed because of British/Spenish and French colonialism for half a century. And yet you fergot that even though Slavery was aolished officely there were other ways to utilize the population or just reduce their space living for expending you colony as the American did.

[newman]

If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.

Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?

That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.

Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.

When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?

Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?

It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!

Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.

THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't metter, the crimes already done and slavery existed because of British/Spenish and French colonialism for half a century. And yet you fergot that even though Slavery was aolished officely there were other ways to utilize the population or just reduce their space living for expending you colony as the American did.

Notice that you NEVER, EVER hear a black carribean islander complaining about the British sending his ancestors there?

That's because they're 100 times better off today because of the British.

[Dexter]

Actually I do, they are cry-baby just as the Arabs that blam their stupidety in the Colonialism. And again, it's very nice that the British educated the "Primitves", but on what price ? Tens of millions of people.

[Ambiorix]

Ambiorix are you supporting this massacre

Of course I don't think shooting unarmed civilians for fun is right.
But now-days in Europe, we'll gonna need an army killing the mohammedans.

The Indians had the intention nation-wide to become independent.
These soldiers were supposed to protect the English Crown, don't forget.
If you don't use force, or have the ability and the will to use it,
at the end you'll loose , no matter how good your diplomacy works.

I think the decision made to fire upon these people,was made in a act of panic.
You know if you let thousands of people protest, it becomes uncontrollable.
In that time there were no water cannons...

Belgian authorities in Congo did things far worse.

I think the Britons needed to act firmly against any uprising to prevent India from becoming independent.

Apart from that I'll give an example where force isn't used, you get more problems:

You know what you get if you don't use force against arabs e.g.?

Intifada, the day you retreat from Gaza, you get rockets from the very abandoned region.
In Paris (see jtf.org) we need a police fore that is willing to shoot back at these kind of thugs,
now it lasted for 4 days. Perhaps , they were able to fight back more resolute.
The other time it took 3 weeks .

i put up of couple of post regarding the situation in Europe.
I think you worry too much about the victims of colonisation by Europeans, but that you still don't realise, the colonisation of the Western World is taking place now.

At the end , we'll loose:
Unless a miracle happens, Europe will be having an Intifada in England or France, that will mark the beginning of a war to  fully Islamise Europe.


http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13056.0
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13045.0
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13042.0

[newman]

Actually I do, they are cry-baby just as the Arabs that blam their stupidety in the Colonialism. And again, it's very nice that the British educated the "Primitves", but on what price ? Tens of millions of people.

Who?

Name these Carribeans.

Britain did NOT kill millions. They had no need to. Britain ruled by siding with one or several tribes/local chiefs/native kings against the rest. Divide & conquer.

Besides, how many are alive today because of Britain's gifts to the natives.

You also ignore the large numbers that died in cyclical famines, plagues and tribal wars BEFORE Britain got there.