What is root cause to terrorism?

How does an alleged tiny sliver of Jewish heritage in Lenin's family in any way contradict the fact that he dedicated his entire life to overthrowing the czar, smashing the autocracy, and installing an atheist regime in its place? It doesn't. His father was a highly ranked, highly respected member of the czarist bureaucracy. Such a position woudl not have been open to anyone suspected of being Jewish. The only people who use this tiny sliver of evidence of anything are people who, like you, still haven't gotten over a gunshot in a Berlin bunker just under 60 years ago.

Furthermore, if you'd pay attention to our own sources, you'd see there's nothing on the Ronald Meyer page claiming that Engels was Jewish ... it says Marx was Jewish, and that Engels was raised in a more overtly religious atmosphere, making him more hostile to churches. Churches, not synagogues. Furthermore, if the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish plot, how do explain the rise of Stalin?

Furthermore, the most central idea Marx promoted was the complete and absolute refutation of any meaning outside of the material world, certainly including any religious doctrine. I've read the Communist Manifesto, I've read Das Kapital, I've read the Eighteenth Brumaire, I've read Critique of the Gotha Programme, I've read pretty much all of Marx, so don't presume to lecture me about his ideas.

Also, that's not an ad hominen attack.

Finally, every President of this country has been at least nominally Christian or deist. Four of the past five have been born-again.

Jews are also disproportionately represented among Nobel prize winners. Does that mean they're inherently more intelligent than other religious groups?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Star Of Eight,
Two important things you aren't looking at is STRATEGIC VALUE and the fact that a politician's stated position may have nothing to do with his actual agendas/motives.
My mistake on the Engels link, I only half read it. I have read that he was Jewish but can't find the source yet.
I was not trying to contradict that Lenin worked to overtrow the Czar and install an athiest regime in it's place. These actions had strategic value to organized Jewry. Lenin being part Jewish is a "tiny sliver" of evidence amongst hundreds of other "tiny slivers" of evidence that Jews played a dominant role in the Bolshevik revolution. Add up all these tiny slivers and you will see that the probablity that an ethnic group that represents 2% of the population had that much involvement by coincidence is almost mathematically impossible.
I don't know if you are aware of the inquisition and the subsequent birth of Marranos. We don't know how many of our presidents were Jewish. No matter how hard someone thumps the Bible, you just don't know if he is Jewish. There is evidence that FDR and LBJ were Jewish, although inconclusive. Currently we have Candidates Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Aaron Russo, all of whom are Jewish, and the incumbent is a distant cousin of Kerry's, who knows.
Regarding your comments about Jewish intelligence, yes they are more intelligent than any other ethnic group, not that the disproportion of Nobel prize winner proves that by itself. Add up all those tiny slivers again.

Ever since the birth of the printing presses, it has been the modus operandi of organized Jewry to sieze these resources and use them to their benefit. They have been the prime movers of ideas for the last 150 years and because of that deserve credit for many of the changes in this world during their reign, especially in the Western world's meddling in the Middle-East (back on topic).

I applaud you for your reading, you must have a great attention span. But just reading and swallowing instead of reading and analyzing is merely subcontracting your thinking. Look at how world events fit together on the basis of motive, means, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi......a totally different picture will emerge and fit together.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Two important things you aren't looking at is STRATEGIC VALUE and the fact that a politician's stated position may have nothing to do with his actual agendas/motives."

Exactly. You're claiming that Trotsky's Jewishness overrides everything else, even the fact he allowed the Red Army to committ pogroms against Jews.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I doubt Trotsky did so, other than perhaps a few individuals involved in a personal power struggle against him, which would be against their cohesive nature.
Remember that history is recorded as it happens by the media (those who own it) and placed in history books by those who own the publishing houses. There are more layers of deception than you can imagine.

Talmud, Zohar I 160a : Jews must always try to decieve goyim.

 

I didn't vote because the choices were biased.

The cause of terroism is religion. Not just Muslim's but ALL religion. Religion requires a blind faith without common sense. It pits one group agains another without tolerance.

Educate the masses to the false claims of Gods and there would be little hate in the world.

 

Travis - this is why your argument is full of shit. Any evidence I bring forward, you simply denounce as further proof of the Jewish conspiracy. In other words, proof that Lenin or Trotsky was a Jew? Well, that's objective, unbiased information. Something that shits over your trite, unamusing rewrite of Mein Kampf. Work of the evil Yids.

Mac - what about the terrorism of the atheist states of Soviet Russia and Maoist China? As I said somewhere else, if we got rid of all religious people, we'd have Trekkies suicide-bombing Star Wars conventions.

 

Travis,
If Jews are the probem, what's your Final Solution?

 

Proof is motive, means, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi. You seem to rely on the written word alone, and do so in disregard of the fact those you are defending have shown their contempt for the truth by attempting to monopolize the flow of information. Investigate and you will see my case fits together using the above criteria.

Ad hominem. I suggest that you give some thought to what is and what is not verification. Looking in a book is useful as it may contain truths about history and usually does, but does not constitute complete verification. This is why you should use the criteria used by police detectives and prosecutors to test the big picture. See if it fits together.
Just reading books and swallowing is subcontracting your thinking.

 

Appeals to consequences are a logical fallacy. Reality exists independently of the consequences of acknowledging it or conveying it.

The solution is to drain the pond and expose the alligators.

 

Fallacy or not, consequences are real.

You expose your intellectual dishonesty by avoiding the question:
Once the pond is drained, what do you do with the alligators?

 

Now you're defending your logical fallacy with ad hominem.
What you are suggesting is that we close our eyes to Jewish aggression because being aware of it will lead to some undetermined and unacceptable consequences. This is an anti-intellectual approach.

Certainly there are both consequences to ignoring and exposing aggression, but these cannot be asessed before exposing the aggression, so there is no way to demonstrate that the consequences of exposing it are greater than the consequences of ignoring it.

 

For somebody who's so sensitive to ad hominem, you spend a lot of time attacking the Jews. Blaming the Jews for everything from terrorism to acne is also an ad hominem, or is it ad Judenem?

There comes a time when logic has to interface with reality. Life is not a formal debate in which you lose points for fallacious arguments.
Fallacious arguments, such as yours, cost lives in the real world.

Even a pseudo-intellectual position such as yours has to consider consequences in the real world. It is naive to suggest that we can debate the "root causes of terrorism" without considering how we can use our understanding of those causes to prevent terrorism.

If I conclude that "the root cause of my poverty is the fact that Travis has more money than I do", how can I avoid the real-world solution "I should take Travis' money"?

At the risk of a further ad hominem, I repeat:
You are intellectually dishonest to suggest that we can just "expose" the Jews with no consideration of the consequences. Neither intellectualism nor freedom of speech give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE REAL-WORLD CONSEQUENCES.

Those who have lived through World War II and it's aftermath can't look at a purely intellectual argument, no matter how well reasoned, without some consideration of it's implications in the real world.
If you want to "expose the Jews", you first have to convince people that you have something intelligent to say. That includes following your argument to it's logical conclusion.

Once the Jews are exposed, WHAT WILL YOU DO?

 

It's not sensitivity, I'm trying to adhere to established debate protocols. When two people debate a topic on a forum and one of them attacks the other it is ad hominem, when you suggest that discussing the topic itself is an "attack" it is a tactic to abruptly and difinitively curtial any critical thinking and discussion.

This is a debate and you are trying to censor it

If my argument is indeed fallacious, there is no need for you to use ad hominem and other logical fallacies to support your argument.

ad hominem.

appeals to consequences.

It is an insult to all members of this board to suggest that they will go out and build gas chambers because we are discussing Jewish misdeeds. All you are demonstrating is that you are convinced their misdeeds are severe enough for participants here to be so overwhelmed by emotion that they would commit voilent actions.

It makes no difference to me if you choose to draw that conclusion. You have the right to believe that you should take my money. You are making the leap of beliefs=actions. I doubt many on this forum will agree that beliefs and logical, civil discussions should be suppressed based on your appeals to consequences.

again, ad hominem and appeals to consequences. Is that all you have?

It is evident that they have many secrets if tactics like these must be employed to protect them from scrutiny.

 

If the other members of this board are insulted, they are free to tell me so.

I have not tried in any way to censor you or to limit the debate. Far from it, I have asked you repeatedly to take your argument to it's logical conclusion.

A debate must always be anchored in the real world. If all you want is mental gymnastics, try a crossword puzzle. But it is a waste of time to debate a real issue as if it was just an exercise.

Please don't let me use my powers to censor you. Continue your argument TO THE END. Don't just stop at "the Jews control the media". So what?

(I'll leave it to the other members of the board to decide who has treated whom with respect. If there is any public censure coming my way, I'll try to take it like a man, er person.)

 

Travis just keeps talking in circles. He answers questions you didn't really ask. He's sticking to his guns, and keeps saying the same things over. Sideshowbob, I don't know WTF Travis is talking about when he says you're censoring him.

 

Thank you, Orestes.

 

The poll is flawed, because the phrasing denies the fact that the root cause of terrorism is in each of us: It's called getting pissed off. You have to get pissed on, and then you confront the powers that be. It is unecessary, counterproductive and utter folly for the USA to allow herself to be drawn into an absurdly retro colonial posture, right over a chopping block that all the world can see, excepting those individuals sufficiantly blinded by unjustifiable yet stupendous American hubris, complacency, self-centeredness, and (in face of the results)- denial.

When present geoeconomics, manifestly fatal for state colonialism (Multi-nationals already won in all 3 Branches of US Govt), exert forces constant as gravity, the Central Government is beginning to experience difficulty maintaining control of the foreign situation, because it is influencing the domestic situation, which is feeding back on the foreign situation, creating a profoundly serious Situation. This is why a massive campaign is underway at this moment, whereby we are to accept that the arrest, detention, interrogation, and denial of future due process to Jose Padilla was justified: Brave DHS, FBI, CIA, (pick any one, they're all Same as the Old Boss now) agents averted a scenario Tom Clancy would gush over, (if he had not recently defected from Bush Supporters) wherein a cliffhanger plot included the narrow escape from Armageddon. But details cannot be revealed beyond this. If you do not like it that the government is now making up rules about US citizens as it bloody well grinds along, then perhaps you need to be looked after for a few months. All we want to do is find out everything you know, while nobody knows where you are for a while- Now, how bad is that? So shut up. There's no Constitutional collision here folks, just move along, go to work, go home, make taxpayers, and May God Bless America, and watch over our Crusaders who are vanquishing the Mohammedans.

 

Here are some educational links on constructing logical arguments and also a list and description of logical fallacies to avoid.

http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/logargs.htm

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

http://www.oakland.edu/phil/cafe/

Armed with this information, one can sort the wheat from the chaff and see who is "talking in circles" as well as who is using underhanded tactics to suppress information.

 

I agree, although I feel a lot Islamic Terrorism also has to do with a “perceived superior identity” that quickly vanishes with a click of the TV. And THAT has got to HURT somewhere inside. I mean: I'm #1 ..*click*.... oh wait #100 more like it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I sometimes wonder: If there were no TV maybe some of these people in ME nations would be much more peaceful?

 

You know, Travis, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy, or at least one who's capable of thinking coherently, which makes it all the more sad that you've yet to offer something I couldn't find at Stormfront.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the tiny sliver of Jewish heritage in Lenin's family overwhlems the far greater percentage of Orthodox and Lutheran heritage.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why a "Jew" such as Trotsky would allow the Red Army to commit pogroms.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the allegedly Jewish-run United States government would send troops to Russia to supress the nascent, allegedly Jewish-run Bolshevik state.